ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Security Situation

Tom Greatrex: What recent assessment she has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: The threat level in Northern Ireland continues to be severe, with persistent planning and targeting by terrorists. Action by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners maintains a high level of pressure on those groups, with the aim of preventing attacks and collecting the evidence that is needed for convictions.

Tom Greatrex: Given the recent attempts to attack members of the PSNI—including the events that occurred just this weekend in Larne—is the Secretary of State confident that it has all the resources that it needs in order to respond to such incidents, and does she expect members of police forces from Great Britain to undertake a mutual aid operation in Northern Ireland over the summer?

Theresa Villiers: I wholeheartedly condemn the disgraceful scenes that have been witnessed in Larne over recent days. Such thuggish behaviour is absolutely unacceptable, and I know that the PSNI is taking very seriously the need to bring those responsible to justice. As we have discussed during previous sessions of Northern Ireland questions, there is an ongoing debate about police funding for the year 2015-16. The Government have provided additional funds, but it remains to be seen exactly how much the Department of Finance and Personnel will contribute. Discussions continue, and I strongly support the efforts made by the Chief Constable to resolve this important matter with the DFP.

Laurence Robertson: Given that the security situation in Northern Ireland is still difficult, is my right hon. Friend confident that the police will still be able to recruit enough officers immediately to replace those who are retiring from the force?

Theresa Villiers: The police are currently recruiting. They recognise the importance of maintaining numbers at appropriate levels, particularly in the light of wastage rates. It is important for us to resolve the question of 2015-16. The Chief Constable has said that he needs about 7,000 officers to ensure that he can run matters efficiently, and the level is slightly below that at present, so I hope that the future discussions with the DFP will bear fruit, as they have in relation to the security funding agreed by the United Kingdom Government.

Nigel Dodds: Given the recent revelations about recordings made at Garda stations in the Irish Republic of all telephone calls made to and from those stations over a number of years, and given that information was withheld from the Smithwick tribunal that investigated the deaths of police officers Breen and Buchanan, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of those revelations, and of their impact in revealing the level of collusion that may have existed between police in the Republic and the IRA?

Theresa Villiers: I had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the Tánaiste and the Irish Government on Monday, and I was assured that concern about the recording of police conversations, and other matters relating to the Garda, would not undermine the efforts being made in the south to help the PSNI to fight terrorism. A number of inquiries are under way to investigate, in particular, whether the recordings will have any impact on current prosecutions. It is very important that those inquiries establish the facts, and that we ensure that every effort continues to be made to bring terrorists to justice and put them in jail.

Nigel Dodds: In the course of the Secretary of State’s discussions with the authorities in the south, particularly the police, what efforts are being made to step up the battle against fuel launderers? There is grave concern in Northern Ireland, where it is felt—given the number of prosecutions and of people charged—that the battle is not being fought with enough vigour, and that the fact that the National Crime Agency is not operating fully in Northern Ireland is having a detrimental effect.

Theresa Villiers: The National Crime Agency will still be able to be part of the fight against fuel laundering, because it is a reserved matter. The latest development is the announcement of the introduction of a new fuel marker, for which I know the right hon. Gentleman and his DUP colleagues have pressed very strongly, and which is to be produced by the Dow Chemical Company. Work is being done on both sides of the border to strengthen the fight against fuel laundering, and work is also under way on the new marker, which will be much more difficult to remove from fuel.

Andrew Bridgen: There were 30 national security attacks in Northern Ireland in 2013. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be a relentless and effective pursuit of the small but violent minority of people in Northern Ireland who prefer terrorism to democracy?

Theresa Villiers: I can certainly give that assurance. The Government remain absolutely committed to combating terrorism in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Strong
	support for the PSNI is vital, which is why we have given it significant extra resources. We also recognise the crucial importance of combating other forms of crime in Northern Ireland, including crime committed by individuals linked to loyalist paramilitaries.

Naomi Long: With respect to the latter organisations, does the Secretary of State feel any discomfort about the amount of time that is spent differentiating between parts of the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force, as though they were respectively a good organisation and an organisation gone bad? Does she agree that they are illegal organisations that should have long since ceased to exist in any structured form?

Theresa Villiers: Both the UDA and UVF are proscribed organisations, but in relation to recent activities in Larne, and criminal activity in the hon. Lady’s constituency, what the individuals involved are undertaking—however they choose to label themselves—is utterly unacceptable criminal behaviour. I am strongly supportive of the extensive efforts being made by the PSNI to put those people in prison and prevent them from exploiting and seeking to control their communities merely to line their own pockets through organised crime.

Lady Hermon: The Secretary of State will be well aware that there has been some controversy within Belfast city council about inviting Pope Francis to visit the city. Does the Secretary of State believe that the security situation and, indeed, the political situation in Northern Ireland are conducive to a papal visit any time soon?

Theresa Villiers: The papal visit to London was extremely successful, and I have every confidence that the security situation will make a papal visit to Northern Ireland entirely possible. Whether such an invitation is extended is obviously a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, but I think it would be a very positive step if the Pope were to visit Northern Ireland.

Cost of Living

William Bain: What recent assessment she has made of the effect of the Government’s economic policies on the cost of living in Northern Ireland.

Rosie Cooper: What recent assessment she has made of the effect of the Government’s economic policies on the cost of living in Northern Ireland.

Andrew Robathan: I am answering these questions together as, spookily enough, they are identical in every word. The Government continue to take actions to support hard-working households. Following the Budget, 685,000 people in Northern Ireland will have benefited from the personal allowance changes since 2010. Furthermore, drivers, as well as Northern Ireland households using fuel oils for home energy, will benefit from the cancelling of the fuel duty rise planned for September.

William Bain: Great minds obviously think alike. In North Antrim and South Down 40% of workers are paid less than the living wage, and across the Province the levels of part-time workers, particularly women, on poverty pay are shocking. In fair pay fortnight, can the Minister tell the House whether he will offer incentives for firms to pay the living wage, so that we can tackle one of the major causes of this Government’s cost of living crisis in Northern Ireland?

Andrew Robathan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the greatest reason for the economic crisis in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom is the appalling economic legacy left us by the previous Government. I am surprised that he does not welcome, for instance, the recently published Northern Ireland Centre for Economic Policy spring outlook predicting that the local economy will grow by 2.8% in 2014 and that over 13,000 new jobs will be created this year in Northern Ireland. That is a fantastic thing to welcome. It is through decent employment that people are lifted out of poverty.

Mr Speaker: Rosie Cooper. Not here.

Bob Blackman: Given that getting a job is the most important element in alleviating cost of living problems, will my right hon. Friend elucidate the measures that the Northern Ireland Office has taken to promote private sector investment so that new firms come into Northern Ireland?

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend will know that last June an economic pact was signed by the Northern Ireland Executive and others that looked forward to a rebalanced economy with more private sector jobs. In the last year some 10,000 jobs have been created in the private sector. As I have said, we are expecting another 13,000 this year, and 23,000 new jobs over the next year.[Official Report, 28 April 2014, Vol. 579, c. 10MC.]

David Simpson: The Minister will be aware that 42% of the households in Northern Ireland suffer from fuel poverty. The most vulnerable are the elderly and cancer patients. Surely more can be done to help those vulnerable in our society?

Andrew Robathan: I have great sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am aware that some 68% of households in Northern Ireland heat their homes with fuel oil, which has gone up dramatically in price in the last few years. Our stop on the fuel escalator will have a decent impact on all those who heat their houses with fuel oil. Of course, we wish to see people doing better and those in poverty helped out of poverty, and that is why we are focusing on economic recovery, as is the hon. Gentleman’s party in the Northern Ireland Executive.

Margaret Ritchie: The Minister will know that the Government’s welfare reform proposals, including the caps, will hit hardest of all in Northern Ireland and will cause a severe cost of living crisis for those already struggling most. It is my contention that the universal credit project is unworkable and is falling apart. Does the Minister agree, and should not the project now be abandoned?

Andrew Robathan: If I might say gently to the hon. Lady, no, I do not agree, and nor do the majority of people in the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, agree that we should go on with the hugely increasing burden of benefits on taxpayers. We look forward to the Northern Ireland Assembly making progress on the Welfare Reform Bill in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Lady might say to her colleagues in the Assembly that we should have some progress, the economy and the people of Northern Ireland would look forward to greater prosperity.

Ivan Lewis: Recent figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in terms of both output and pay, Northern Ireland has been the region hardest hit by the recession. One in six workers are on low pay, and the average household has seen a 9% drop in income. What are the Government going to do about the cost of living crisis facing the people of Northern Ireland?

Andrew Robathan: I have already responded on this issue. The hon. Gentleman is rather kind to raise it, given that he was a member of the last Government, who led to the economic crisis that we inherited in 2010. We have done an enormous amount—I have mentioned the economic pact—and the investment conference that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hosted in Northern Ireland in October has led to a great deal of further foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Executive is working hard on this issue, and I congratulate them on the work they have done.

Ivan Lewis: The idea that our Government caused the global banking crisis is complete nonsense, given that the Conservatives were calling for deregulation year after year after year.
	May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer a serious question about Northern Ireland? Political stalemate on welfare reform within Northern Ireland and between the Northern Ireland Executive and the Treasury now poses a real threat to Northern Ireland’s recovery. Is it not time for the Government to take a more active role in seeking an end to this unacceptable stalemate?

Andrew Robathan: I do not think that I blamed the last Government for the international banking crisis; I blamed them for the dire state of the UK economy that we inherited in 2010—quite reasonably, if I might say so.
	We are working very hard with the Executive to bring about a better economic situation in Northern Ireland. We want to see the Welfare Reform Bill passed in the Assembly, as indeed do many parties in the Executive. Unfortunately, it is currently bogged down in the Assembly because two parties are unwilling to support it.

Haass Process

Iain McKenzie: What steps she is taking to promote a positive outcome for the Haass talks.

Alasdair McDonnell: What recent assessment she has made of the Haass process.

Theresa Villiers: I have been working with Northern Ireland’s political leadership to support and encourage progress on flags, parades and the past. It is important to find an agreed way forward on these issues in order to underpin political stability, support economic renewal and overcome community division.

Iain McKenzie: Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that she still believes a positive outcome from the ongoing all-party talks will be reached, and is she fully engaged in trying to make that happen?

Theresa Villiers: I am fully engaged in trying to make that happen, and I remain optimistic that an agreed way forward can be found. The party leaders continue to meet. The speeches made by the Deputy First Minister and First Minister in Washington on these matters were very clear that both Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist party were determined to find a way forward. The on-the-runs crisis has set things back, but I know that the party leaders continue to work. It is a pity that the Ulster Unionist party has pulled out, and I urge them to come back to the table.

Alasdair McDonnell: Does the Secretary of State accept that if the process begun by Richard Haass is to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, party leaders and parties in Northern Ireland will require the active hands-on support of both the British and Irish Governments—namely, her good self and the Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore?

Theresa Villiers: They certainly will need the support and encouragement of both Governments. I can assure the House that they very definitely have that, and that was confirmed in my discussions with Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore on Monday. We are committed to this process and we want to see it succeed. If we have learned anything from the events of recent days, it is the importance of a balanced, transparent and accountable process to deal with Northern Ireland’s past.

Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State referred to the party leaders meeting, and of course they are meeting, with the exception of the Ulster Unionist leader. We should encourage progress in those discussions because many people want to see those issues addressed and resolved so that we can get on and deal not just with the past, but with the present and the future.

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman is right. Resolving these issues or finding an agreed way forward will enable further efforts and energies to be concentrated on pensions, the economy and so on. There is a real opportunity here. A lot of good work was done under the auspices of Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan, not least by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) as part of the negotiations under Richard Haass.

Nick Smith: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of any need for legislation to implement any possible agreement on Haass?

Theresa Villiers: As we are currently advised, structures of the sort proposed by Richard Haass in draft document No. 7 would not need Westminster legislation, apart from a fairly straightforward devolution of responsibilities for parading. Some of the issues are quite complex, and we would work with the Northern Ireland Executive, once there was an agreement, to see whether further legislation might be needed in Westminster.

Mr Speaker: I call Sammy Wilson. No? Mr Wilson had signalled an interest, but never mind—we will hear from him another day.

Ivan Lewis: Does the Secretary of State agree that following the local and European elections and the conclusion of the judge-led inquiry into on-the-runs at the end of May, all Northern Ireland parties should see it as their top priority to reach a speedy agreement on the issues covered by the Haass talks? Three years of elections in Northern Ireland cannot lead to permanent political logjam.

Theresa Villiers: I certainly agree with the shadow Secretary of State. We have a crucial opportunity, which I hope the party leaders will seize. We are on the eve of a new parading season. The next few weeks will be crucial. I very much welcome the fact that the party leaders are continuing their discussions and will do so throughout most of the election period. It is crucial that we find a way forward on these matters and the crisis surrounding OTRs only makes the case more strongly for a solution on the past.

First World War (Irish Soldiers)

Edward Leigh: What steps her Department is taking to commemorate the sacrifice of Irish soldiers during the first world war.

Andrew Robathan: The Northern Ireland Office is committed to delivering the Government’s programme for the first world war centenary in Northern Ireland in a manner which promotes reconciliation and contributes to a peaceful, shared future. The Department is also co-ordinating closely with the Irish Government on the centenary and the wider decade of commemorations in Ireland.

Edward Leigh: Enormous numbers of Irish men from both communities willingly volunteered. That is the key: they willingly volunteered for king and country, and many of them made the ultimate sacrifice. Can the Minister tell the House how he will use the commemorations to bring both communities together in remembrance of their common sacrifice?

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend is right. Some 200,000 Irish personnel volunteered to fight in the first world war. It is difficult to tell who was a regular, who was Irish and from the north, or whatever. They were just termed British in those days. Some 49,000 were killed in the first world war and we do commemorate them. As a Government we get on extremely well with the Irish Government. For myself, I laid four wreaths on Armistice
	day at Islandbridge, Glasnevin and elsewhere—the first time, I think, that a British Minister has done that since partition.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The men of the 36th (Ulster) Division and, indeed, all Irish soldiers were volunteers in the great war. More Victoria Crosses were won by Irish soldiers than by any other section. What will the Secretary of State’s office do to encourage primary schoolchildren in Northern Ireland to learn about the great sacrifice of our volunteers and our soldiers, and the commitment of our men and women in the previous century to our nation?

Andrew Robathan: We are very keen that all children should know of the sacrifice of our forefathers 100 years ago. Education and education policy are devolved, but the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) is leading on commemoration and is doing an extremely good job. The hon. Gentleman mentions VCs. The first Victoria Cross awarded to a British soldier in the first world war was won by Maurice Dease at the battle of Mons. It was posthumous and he was a Catholic Irishman from Coole in County Westmeath.

Stephen Lloyd: Many nationalists from the south served and died in the first world war. My grandfather was from Mayo, and he fought on the Somme. Will the Minister be able to send me precise details of the events taking place in the south to commemorate 1914?

Andrew Robathan: There is a programme of events and, as I have said, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley is leading on this in Northern Ireland. A ceremony is planned for 4 August in Dublin—probably in St Patrick’s cathedral—which will be followed that evening by a ceremony in St Anne’s cathedral in Belfast. I will send the hon. Gentleman further details.

John Robertson: On Monday, along with other members of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, I had the honour of visiting the war memorial that commemorates the 49,000 Irish who were killed in the first world war. We were ably led by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson). Will the Minister congratulate the BIPA on all the work it does, and will he do all he can to ensure that the commemoration in Flanders later this year is a success?

Andrew Robathan: I certainly congratulate the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who laid a wreath at Islandbridge. Islandbridge is a very fitting memorial, designed by Lutyens, which the Queen also visited recently.

Dealing with the Past

Nigel Mills: What recent discussions she has had with political parties in Northern Ireland on dealing with the past.

Theresa Villiers: I hold regular discussions with representatives of the Northern Ireland political parties on a range of issues, including dealing with Northern Ireland’s past.
	I continue to encourage party leaders to work towards an agreement on the past which is balanced and can command public support.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her reply. Does she think it has become harder to reach a deal on the past as a result of the on-the-runs issue, which was effectively an agreement on partial immunity for people who might be required to tell the truth about various incidents?

Theresa Villiers: The concern caused by the on-the-runs issue, and the fact that the scheme was not dealt with transparently, have set back the progress on dealing with the past. However, the proposals set out in the Haass seven document provide a good basis for further discussions and I welcome the fact that many of the parties have said that they can support that kind of architecture, despite the fact that further issues need to be resolved before an agreement is found.

William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State accept that honesty is essential in dealing with the issues of the past? Does she also agree that it is time for Sinn Fein leaders to face up to their past of murder and destruction, and to apologise to the people of Ulster for their bloody campaign of terror?

Theresa Villiers: I do believe that honesty and transparency are an important means of dealing with the legacy of the past. The UK Government have taken a lead in taking responsibility where the actions of the state have been wrong, and we would expect everyone involved in the troubles to account for the role that they have played.

John Baron: In order to give lasting peace the best chance, there has to be equity and balance when addressing the past. Given the way in which the on-the-run letters contrast with how some ex-soldiers fear they might be treated, will the Secretary of State look at the ongoing peace process in the round to ensure that there is balance?

Theresa Villiers: Of course it is crucial in all matters relating to Northern Ireland to maintain balance and fairness. I reiterate the assurances I have given the House that the letters issued under the on-the-runs scheme did not amount to an amnesty or to immunity; they were merely a statement of fact as to whether the individual concerned was wanted by the police for arrest at a particular time.

Peter Hain: I agree with the Secretary of State’s last answer, and I stress that if we are to find a way of bringing closure to the victims of the most difficult cases that haunt us from the past, that has to be done in an even-handed fashion. It would be wrong, for example, if Bloody Sunday soldiers were prosecuted but loyalist or republican paramilitaries were not.

Theresa Villiers: I emphasise again, as the Prime Minister has done at this Dispatch Box, that this Government do not support amnesties from prosecution for anybody. It is crucial that, whatever arrangements are made in relation to the past in Northern Ireland, they should be balanced and fair to all sides in the community.

David Mowat: One aspect of how we deal with the past is the continuing support we give to victims. May I thank the Secretary of State for the support she gave in securing the funding for the Peace Centre in Warrington announced in the Budget? May I also ask her to address the issue of European Union funding being ring-fenced for the island of Ireland, which means that victims on the mainland do not have access to it?

Theresa Villiers: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about my role in securing additional funding for the Warrington Peace Centre. The people there do fantastic work and I am keen to continue working with them. I am, of course, aware of the concerns about the fact that they are not able to access funds which are provided solely for people in Northern Ireland, even when, sadly, there are many victims of terrorism in Great Britain. It is vital that those victims have all the support that they need, and this Government believe that any solution on the past in Northern Ireland must have victims at its centre.

Mr Speaker: May we have a bit of order in the House for the last question so that the questioner can be heard and we can hear the Secretary of State as well?

Mark Durkan: Beyond her exhortations to the parties, has the Secretary of State actually scoped what legislative measures would be required from her in respect of the Haass proposals on the past? In addition, what authorisations and directions would be needed from ministerial colleagues in Whitehall?

Theresa Villiers: The advice I have been given is that Westminster legislation would not be required if the parties decided to implement the Haass seven proposals, apart from a devolution of parading. The measures on the past, I am advised, could all be done via legislation in the Assembly, but I am happy to review this matter in discussions with the hon. Gentleman at a later date.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Jeremy Corbyn: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 April.

David Cameron: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Prime Minister aware that at the current time in England 3,956,000 people are in the private rented sector? Generation Rent finds that two thirds of them feel insecure and half of them feel that they pay far too much in rent. Does he not think it is time to end the social cleansing of inner-city Britain by bringing in proper rent regulation with a fair rent
	formula and total regulation of the private rented sector to give people security and peace of mind in where they live?

David Cameron: Where I am sure the hon. Gentleman and I would agree is that there is a need to build more houses, including houses in the private rental sector—I would say there is cross-party agreement on that. Where I think he is wrong is on full-on rent control, which has been tried in the past and has tended to destroy the private rented sector, drive everyone back to the state sector and reduce the quality of housing as a result.

Stephen Dorrell: In the week when our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken of the importance to the Government of securing full employment, will the Prime Minister confirm that the record shows that no Labour Government in history left office with unemployment lower than when they came to office? Does that not illustrate in this area, as in all others, the importance of the principle that what matters is what works?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend is factually correct: every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office. In this Parliament what we have seen is 1.7 million more people employed in the private sector and 1.3 million more people employed as a whole—one of the highest rates of employment in our history. We must keep up the work to offer more hope and more security to more of our people.

Edward Miliband: Can the Prime Minister tell the House: what is his excuse for the Royal Mail fiasco?

David Cameron: What I would say about Royal Mail is that taxpayers benefited from selling the business for £2 billion—that of course is £2 billion that the Labour party never achieved, because it was never able to sell the business.

Edward Miliband: Here is what the Prime Minister’s own side is saying about this issue. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said yesterday that it was a “debacle”, “unethical” and “immoral”. The Prime Minister sold the shares for 330p. What are they trading at now?

David Cameron: The shares are trading ahead of where they were sold, but the fact is this—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Opposition nor any other Member in this House must be shouted down. It is not on.

David Cameron: When the right hon. Gentleman was sitting in the Cabinet, this business lost half a billion pounds. It is now in the private sector. It is making profits, paying taxes and working hard for our country. More to the point, there are more than 140,000 people who work for the Post Office, delivering letters and parcels, who own shares in the business that they work for. They have a stake in the future of Royal Mail. They are collecting dividends as well as pay, and that is something of we should all be proud of.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister cannot answer the question because it is such an embarrassment. He sold at 330p, and this morning the price was 563p. It is basic maths. It is not so much “The Wolf of Wall Street” but the dunce of Downing street. Let me ask him this: if Royal Mail was sold at today’s price, how much more would the taxpayer have made?

David Cameron: I will take a lecture from almost anyone in the country about the sale of Royal Mail, but not from the two muppets who advised the last Chancellor on selling the gold. There they sit with not a word of apology for £9 billion wasted. The Royal Mail privatisation has got £2 billion for the taxpayer, 140,000 employees owning shares and 700,000 members of the public who are now shareholders. This is a great success for our country, and something that the right hon. Gentleman should be praising.

Edward Miliband: Again, the Prime Minister cannot answer the question. The answer is that the taxpayer would have got £1.4 billion less for this valuable asset than it is worth today. Here is the thing, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. When the Prime Minister was speaking I said that he should not be shouted down and nor should anyone else. However hard the effort is made to shout someone down, it will not work because we will just keep going. The sooner the juveniles can grow up and reach adulthood, so much the better.

Edward Miliband: And here is the thing, Mr Speaker, a third of the shares were sold to just 16 City investors. And get this: there was a gentleman’s agreement that those City investors would not sell the shares. What happened? Within weeks, half of those shares had been sold, and they had made a killing worth hundreds of millions of pounds. In other words, mates rates to the Prime Minister’s friends in the City. Perhaps he can tell us what happened to that gentleman’s agreement on those shares?

David Cameron: We know why the right hon. Gentleman is asking these questions—because he is paid to by the trade unions. He sat in a Cabinet that wanted to privatise the Royal Mail. That was its commitment. What happened was this. The general secretary of the Communication Workers Union said that “in terms of the last Labour Government, they tried to privatise the Royal Mail—it was the unions who brought that government to its senses.” Once again, Labour was weak in Government because it could not carry out its policies; it is weak in Opposition because it does not support shareholding by postal workers in the Royal Mail; it is weak because it has no economic policy; and it is weak because it has no plan.

Edward Miliband: He has flogged it off to his friends in the City and he cannot answer the question. I will ask him the question again. There was a gentleman’s agreement that these so-called long-term investors would not sell their shares, but half of them were sold and hundreds of millions of pounds were made. What happened to that agreement? Answer the question.

David Cameron: What happened is that the taxpayer is £2 billion better off. Yes, and anyone who has sold shares has missed out on what is a successful business.
	The truth is this: the right hon. Gentleman sat in a Cabinet that wanted to privatise Royal Mail. They could not do it—
	[
	Interruption.
	]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer.

David Cameron: They could not do it because the trade unions would not let them. There are now 140,000 shareholders working for the Royal Mail and almost three quarters of a million members of the public with shares. Those are signs for celebration in our country, not reasons to talk them down just because the Opposition are anti-market, anti-competitive and anti-business. Nothing has changed in the Labour party. No wonder it has advertised this week for someone to bring some fresh ideas to the leadership. I have the commercial here. It says that they should have
	“the ability to manage…different teams across the Labour Party”.
	That must be the hardest job in Britain. No wonder Labour is looking for a change, because it has a leader who does not have a clue.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister has gone as red as a postbox, and that is because he knows that he lost £1.4 billion for the taxpayer. This is a sale that nobody wanted and nobody voted for—a national asset sold at a knockdown price to make a fortune for the few. It is a symbol of a Government who stand up for the wrong people, with the British people paying the price.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman just said that it was a sale that nobody wanted. It was in his manifesto—it was a commitment of the last Government. They are shaking—[Interruption.] They worked so hard, but they failed to do it. This coalition Government privatised the Royal Mail, created thousands of new shareholders and have a great business working for Britain. We have seen it all from Labour this week. They are advertising for fresh ideas. People around the right hon. Gentleman are fighting like ferrets in a sack. Their top adviser—get this, Mr Speaker—is called Arnie and he has gone to America, but unlike Arnie he has said “I’m not coming back.” They are warring, they are weak and they do not have a plan.

Chloe Smith: It is as quick to go 225 miles over land and sea from here to Brussels as it is to go half the distance on the train to Norwich. Does my right hon. Friend agree that East Anglia needs investment in better, faster rail infrastructure and that the Norwich in 90 taskforce will bring benefits to businesses and passengers in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex?

David Cameron: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and others for the work they are doing on the Norwich in 90 taskforce. This is a very important project. I welcome the interest shown by business leaders, local authorities and enterprise partnerships. East Anglia is one of the fastest-growing parts of our country and it has world-class companies and universities. Better transport will support and bolster that growth and I look forward to the taskforce report that I know she is working on. I hope that it will be used to shape the specification for the long rail franchise, which should start in 2016.

Anas Sarwar: Thirty-five years ago, the Scottish National party and the Tories united to bring down a Labour Government and bring in Margaret Thatcher—[Interruption.] Note, Mr Speaker, that the noise is coming from two sides of the House. Today, the SNP and the Tories are united on the side of tax cuts for big business, united on the side of the energy companies and united against a 50p tax. Does that not demonstrate to the Prime Minister that what people across the UK need is not separation between Scotland and England but liberation from right-wing Tory economics?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman has provided a very useful public service by reminding me of one useful thing that the SNP has done in its history by getting rid of that dreadful Labour Government who nationalised half of British industry and made such a mess. I agree with him on one very important thing, in spite of his views, and that is that the United Kingdom is much better off together, but I do think he is completely wrong about one of the issues he raised. This is the week in which we have cut corporation tax to 21%. That will attract businesses into England, into Wales, into Scotland and into Northern Ireland. He should be standing up and praising this tax-cutting Government, rather than criticising them.

Martin Horwood: A planning inspector recently told a closed meeting in Gloucestershire that he would give more weight to consultants’ economic models than to “10,000 objections from local people”. Is that what the national planning framework really meant by “empowering” local people?

David Cameron: The national planning framework is very clear about the importance of listening to local people on development. My hon. Friend will have received a letter recently explaining some of the changes in the guidance under the framework to make sure that, for instance, previous housing performance by local councils is taken into account in these very important decisions.

Jamie Reed: At a time of unprecedented crisis, the Prime Minister saw at first hand just how good the West Cumberland hospital in my constituency can be. Six years into a rebuilding programme, that hospital has been plunged into crisis, is being starved of staff and faces being stripped of key clinical services. The nearest hospital is not just down the road—it is 42 miles away in Carlisle, and that, too, is struggling. Will the Prime Minister commit today to do everything he can to assist me, local clinicians and my community in retaining consultant-led services at the West Cumberland hospital?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I saw for myself what an excellent job this hospital does and how important it is. The clinical commissioning group total revenue available this year is an increase of 2.3%—£663 million. That is because this Government decided to protect NHS spending and not cut it, and that is why important hospital developments can go ahead.

David Rutley: There are record numbers of small businesses and many more people seeking to become self-employed. What steps are the Government taking to support first-time
	entrepreneurs in becoming first-time employers and helping many more people achieve their ambitions in life?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to make it easier for someone to take on their first employee. That is why, this Saturday, we are bringing in the £2,000 employment allowance, which comes into force on Sunday. It means that every business that employs someone will see a tax reduction of up to £2,000. That means that 55,000 businesses will be taken out of paying national insurance contributions altogether. Whereas the Labour party introduced jobs taxes, we are cutting jobs taxes.

Gisela Stuart: At the weekend, General Sir Richard Shirreff warned that reducing the Regular Army from 102,000 to 82,000 by 2020 would weaken the armed forces and was “one hell of a risk” to take. Why does the Prime Minister think that it is not one hell of a risk?

David Cameron: It is the right thing to do because what is most important is to make sure that our armed forces have the best equipment of any armed forces anywhere in the world. I have been out to Afghanistan every year since 2006, sometimes twice a year, and I always ask the same question: “Do you have the equipment you need? Is there anything else that you want?” It is under this Government that we have seen real improvements in equipment. Yes, we will have an 82,000 Regular Army. We will also have a larger reserve force, and we are recruiting for that actively, and we will have armed forces and defence equipment that this country can be very proud of.

Martin Vickers: Following last week’s excellent news of the Siemens development in Hull, it is vital that we move quickly with projects planned for the south bank of the Humber. Does my right hon. Friend share my view that all parties must work together to make sure that the Humber does indeed become the green energy capital of the UK?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The announcement by Siemens is a huge step forward, because I think it will bring an enormous amount of industry in its wake in terms of supply and component manufacture. We now need to make sure that the colleges are training up apprentices, and that UK Trade & Investment is working to attract other businesses to the area. As he knows, agreements are still needed in other parts of Humberside to make sure that all the necessary developments go ahead.

Kate Hoey: The Prime Minister will know that millions of people across the country value and love their Post Office card account, particularly those who do not have access to banks and do not want a bank, but want to get their cash each week. The contract with the Department for Work and Pensions is now being renegotiated. Will he give a commitment today that whatever happens, pensioners, and indeed everyone on benefits, will be able to access the money that they need through the Post Office?

David Cameron: I shall look carefully at what the hon. Lady says. It is important for people to be able to use the Post Office in the way that she says. Obviously,
	there have been changes in the way that the card account works, but I strongly support it and I will look closely at what she says and perhaps write to her.

Julian Brazier: The Territorial Army won 71 VCs and thousands of other decorations in the first world war. In this 100th anniversary year of that war, does my right hon. Friend accept that learning lessons from our English-speaking cousins in America, particularly the pivotal role the National Guard has played in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the way to ensure that we can afford the equipment our armed forces need for the future?

David Cameron: Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has campaigned long and hard for our Territorial Army and other reserve forces. The point he makes is a good one. Today in Afghanistan we see our Territorial Army working alongside our Regular Army, fighting with them and being decorated with them for their brave actions. Other countries have shown that it is possible to have a larger reserve force alongside the regular force. That is the way to have a well-equipped and flexible Army, Navy and Air Force for the future.

Jim Dobbin: The Lanzarote convention sets a Europe-wide standard for the protection of children against sexual exploitation. The UK has signed it but not yet ratified it. Following recent episodes of grooming in the UK, including in my borough of Rochdale, will the Government now consider ratifying that very important convention?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that child sexual exploitation is an abhorrent crime. We are determined to stamp it out. We have seen some extremely disturbing cases, not just in Rochdale, but in Oxfordshire, the county I represent. As he says, we have signed the convention. I understand that there is a small amount of further assessment to be done before the UK is in a position to ratify it. I will keep in touch with developments for him.

Chris Kelly: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the doubling of capital allowances to £500,000 provides a welcome boost to manufacturers in Dudley and the black country, such as Miss Daisy’s Manufacturing which I visited recently, and will increase investment in the manufacturing sector, securing more jobs for the British people?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A key part of our long-term economic plan is to make sure we get our businesses investing. One of the remarkable things about the Budget was all the ways it said we would address some of the perennial weaknesses in the British economy. We need to export more, to invest more and to improve our performance in those regards, and we need to ensure that investment is spread around our country. Unlike the Labour party, we are not going to be satisfied with an unbalanced recovery.

Geraint Davies: Today the Ford Motor Company agreed a multi-million pound contribution towards the Visteon pension fund for former Ford employees. Will the Prime Minister congratulate
	Unite the union which, alongside a cross-party group of MPs, has struggled to get a fair deal for former Ford workers? Will he commit to supporting pensioners facing the same plight at the hands of other multinational companies?
	 [
	Interruption.
	]

David Cameron: I did not catch the end of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I wholeheartedly agree that this is a good development for pensioners. All those who played a role—I think that colleagues on both sides of the House have been involved—are to be credited for the work they have done with Ford to make sure we get that justice.

Roger Williams: Although I welcome the Government’s intervention on fuel bills, many rural people do not benefit from mains gas and have to depend on more expensive fuels. Will the Government investigate how they can benefit off-grid customers, who often live in fuel poverty?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are many people who are off mains gas, including in my constituency. I think that there are things we can do, not least encouraging the power of group purchasing by encouraging communities to come together to buy oil and gas so that they can drive down prices. I am sure that he will be looking at the options available in his constituency.

Siobhain McDonagh: Three months ago I asked the Prime Minister about his £1,000 bobby tax, which anyone joining the police has to pay. [Interruption.] One thousands pounds may not be much to him, but it is having a huge impact on forces such as the Met, which is 2,000 officers under strength and finding it impossible to recruit. Interruption.] We all know that the bobby tax is wrong—

Mr Speaker: Order. This question will be heard. Braying, sneering and making rude remarks are the sort of thing the public despise. The hon. Lady will be heard, and the person sneering, if he has any sense of shame, ought to be ashamed of himself.

Siobhain McDonagh: This is an important issue for everyone who lives in this country. We all know that the bobby tax is wrong, but will the Prime Minister now accept that it is not working and abolish it so that our police get back to strength to defend the people in my constituency of Mitcham and Morden?

David Cameron: First, it is not a tax; secondly, it is not a barrier to recruitment; and thirdly, recruitment is taking place in the Metropolitan police. Yes of course we have seen reductions in police funding, but we have also seen significant cuts in crime. I am proud to say that the Metropolitan police are recruiting, and they are confident they will be able to get good recruits.

Alan Reid: Bringing superfast broadband to rural areas is vitally important, and the Government are rightly spending over £1 billion on it, but my constituents are very frustrated that BT cannot tell them when, or even if,
	their home will be connected, which makes alternative planning impossible. Will the Prime Minister tell BT to produce clear plans for the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money it is getting?

David Cameron: I have had this discussion with BT, and I am happy to hold it again. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), will take up the specific point, which is that we have asked BT to give more detail in their roll-out plans about which homes and areas will get broadband so that other companies and organisations are then able to see whether there are different ways of filling any gaps. However, I do not agree with some who think that BT has somehow not been putting its shoulder to the wheel. A massive investment is going into broadband: 10,000 homes and businesses are being connected every week. This is a real success story for our country.

Ann McKechin: As the Royal Mail share price remains about 70% above the flotation price, will the Prime Minister now rule out paying a £4 million bonus from taxpayers’ money to its Government advisers?

David Cameron: The taxpayer is £2 billion better off because we were able to put this business into the private sector, whereas previous Governments failed so dismally.

David Davies: My constituent Mariana Robinson is seeking the right to be treated by the English-run NHS. Will the Prime Minister investigate what can be done to help her and other NHS refugees who are seeking the higher standards and lower waiting times that are being delivered by this Government?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to raise this because, frankly, what is happening in our NHS in Wales is a scandal. It is a scandal that is entirely the responsibility of the Labour party running the Welsh Assembly Government, who made the decision to cut NHS spending by 8% in Wales. As a result, they have not met an A and E target since 2009. The last time—[Interruption.] I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition is laughing; the state of the NHS in Wales is not funny. If he had any gumption—any backbone—he would get hold of the First Minister in Wales and tell him to start investing in the NHS in Wales.

Frank Roy: Twenty-five years ago yesterday, the hated poll tax was imposed on the people of Scotland. That ended with the Prime Minister being kicked out of office by her own party. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to apologise for that imposition?

David Cameron: I am sorry; I did not catch the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Would it be possible for him to ask it again, Mr Speaker? I do not know whether it was the same as the question about the Scottish National party.

Mr Speaker: Yes, let us hear it again.

Frank Roy: Twenty-five years ago yesterday, the hated poll tax was imposed on the people of Scotland. That ended with the Prime Minister being kicked out by her own party. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to apologise for that tax?

David Cameron: I have made clear my view about this issue many, many times over many, many years. I think the council tax is a much better replacement. The key now is to keep the levels of council tax down. That is why Government Members support a freeze.

Guy Opperman: In 2012, 150,000 people petitioned this House to stop charitable air ambulances having to pay VAT on fuel. May I thank the Prime Minister for his actions in the 2014 Budget which will mean that more missions are flown and more lives are saved? Does he agree that this is possible only because we are using the LIBOR fines for good purposes and because we have a long-term economic plan?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to him because he is the founder and chair of the all-party group on air ambulances. He has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, and he led a debate in the House in 2012. I am delighted about the result that was achieved in the Budget. As he says, it will lead to an expansion of the service. He is also right that you can only make these decisions if you look after the nation’s resources, control public spending, and get the deficit down—in short, if you have a long-term economic plan.

Nick Smith: Why has it taken four years to recruit just 41 teachers into the £10 million Troops to Teachers programme?

David Cameron: We support the Troops to Teachers programme. I will look very carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says, because it is a good idea and a good proposal, and I want to make sure it is working.

David Morris: It appears from my council tax bill that the Labour-led Lancashire county council and the Labour-led Lancaster district council have raised council tax by 2%. [Interruption.] Yes, very shocking. Will the Prime Minister help me to find out what has really gone on—whether it is really 2% or some other erroneous figure—and help me to sort the matter out?

David Cameron: What I would say to my hon. Friend—and he can say this to Lancashire county council, and indeed to his district council—is that this Government are making the money available so that councils can freeze their council tax. There is no excuse for councils that do not want to take that step. They should help people, keep their bills down and make sure that the council tax is frozen.

Ian Murray: The Liberton high school community in my constituency was left devastated just before Christmas when 13-year-old pupil Jamie Skinner died while playing football. That heartbreak returned yesterday with the sad death of 12-year-old Keane Wallis-Bennett when a fabricated wall collapsed on her while she was at school. I am sure the Prime Minister and the whole House will wish to send their
	condolences to the head teacher, Stephen Kelly, the staff, teachers and pupils at the school, her friends and of course her family, who sent her to school yesterday morning, for her never to return home.

David Cameron: The whole House will agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. It was an absolutely shocking accident that people will have seen across the country. Their hearts will go out to the family and all those involved with the school. Clearly the lessons will have to be learned to make sure that tragic accidents like that cannot happen again.

Greg Mulholland: The Chancellor’s cut in beer duty is great news for Britain’s brewers, as it will allow them to invest, but it will do nothing to help the 20,000 pubs tied to large companies. He has got rid of the fuel duty escalator, the beer duty escalator and the alcohol duty escalator; will the Government now tackle the pubco problem by getting rid of the pubco price escalator?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the cut in beer duty, which is the second in a row in the Budget. It is about making sure that the industry creates jobs and about supporting our pub trade. It was noticeable that straight after the Budget Marston’s announced 3,000 additional jobs. We want to look very carefully at what is happening in tied pubs and at the activities of some pub companies. It has been debated in the House. We are looking very closely at what more we can do to make sure there are fair outcomes for Britain’s publicans and Britain’s pub goers.

Paul Farrelly: What plans does the Prime Minister have to reform higher education fees and loans so that the system works for students, works for all universities and works for the country?

David Cameron: The biggest plan we have in this area is to expand the number of people going into higher education by taking the cap off the numbers who can attend. Our plans on fees and repayments are clearly set out. It is encouraging that they have not put people off going to university, nor have they put people from low-income backgrounds off going to university.
	I would make this point to the hon. Gentleman. Someone said in June 2010:
	“A graduate tax would replace upfront tuition fees…I want to consult widely before publishing detailed plans later this year.”
	That was the Leader of the Opposition, in June 2010. I know we are dealing with a blank page and an empty head, but for heaven’s sake, get on with it.

Andrew Selous: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is the skills, enterprise and sheer hard work of all the staff at companies such as Honeytop Speciality Foods, that, in conjunction with our long-term economic plan, are driving the economy forward? That company created 200 full-time jobs last year and another 75 this year. It has exported naan bread to India, has created the fastest burger bun line in the whole of Europe and is making Dunstable the crumpet capital of the United Kingdom.

David Cameron: Very good—I am delighted that Dunstable is taking on that label. It is an important week for British business and for British families. This week, corporation tax has been cut to make our businesses stronger, the £10,000 personal allowance is being introduced to make our families stronger, and we have the £2,000
	employment allowance to make small businesses stronger. There are 3 million people who will now have been taken out of income tax all together. That is what is happening in our country. Our economy is getting stronger and everyone can see that Labour’s arguments are getting weaker all the time.

Point of Order

Jonathan Ashworth: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister suggested that the 2010 Labour manifesto proposed privatising Royal Mail. In fact, the 2010 Labour manifesto said, very clearly:
	“continuing modernisation and investment will be needed by the Royal Mail in the public sector.”
	Could you use your good offices, Mr Speaker, to ensure that the Prime Minister comes back to the Chamber to speedily correct the record?

Mr Speaker: I am not sure that I can offer the hon. Gentleman any such hope, but he is a wily and experienced operator who is aware of the opportunity that points of order, or attempted points of order, can present to him to correct the record. He has availed himself of that opportunity, and doubtless his observations will be winging their way to the Leicester Mercury ere long.

Scotland (Independence) (Westminster Representation)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Angus MacNeil: I beg to move.
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that, in the event of a positive vote in the Scottish Independence referendum, Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies shall vacate their seats on the day on which Scotland becomes independent; that Scottish constituencies shall be abolished with effect from the same date; and for connected purposes.
	This Bill seeks to address the consequences of a positive yes result in the first consultation with the people of Scotland on the Union of the Parliaments of 1707. Indeed, it is the first such consultation for 307 years.
	According to Michael Fry in his 2006 book, “The Union”, the Union was brought about following a trade war during which Scots parliamentarians sought to abolish their Parliament, end a trade war with a large neighbour and in return be able to trade freely with them. Today, thankfully, in a world with intergovernmental organisations such as the European Union, the European economic area and the World Trade Organisation, such a move would be unnecessary. Had those organisations existed in the past, perhaps such a union would never have happened. Incidentally, I understand that Mr Fry started writing “The Union” as a Unionist, but due to the knowledge he gleaned from the process he ended up supporting independence.
	The main positive consequence of the referendum would, of course, be independence for Scotland, that most ancient of European nations. It is currently a stateless nation, but not, I hope, for much longer. We want to be clear about what the referendum seeks to do: it seeks to end the tawdry political union of 1707 and move political powers that belong to Scotland back to Scotland, completing logically the process of devolution and ending the anomaly of the West Lothian question, whereby some Scottish MPs vote on English matters, such as giving English students tuition fees of between £6,000 and £9,000, while their own constituents are being well taken care of by the good management of an SNP Government in Edinburgh and paying nothing.
	Incidentally, Members will have noticed over the years that the SNP does not vote on matters affecting England, because it believes, like the French and Germans, that other peoples can govern themselves effectively without any help from the Scots. Such an approach should be adopted by all Scottish MPs in the event of a yes vote.
	It should be understood by those people who often erroneously bundle things together that the referendum does not affect the Union of the Crowns of 1603, which started with James Stuart and continues to this day with our present Queen Elizabeth II, who is Head of State of 16 independent realms, with Canada, New Zealand and Australia the most notable among them.
	The Bill has at its heart fairness, particularly the issue of democratic fairness for our neighbours—the good people who live in England, Wales and Northern Ireland —as it would remove MPs from Scotland. It respects
	their democratic rights and functions as well as our own in Scotland. The Bill seeks to remove Scottish MPs from this place following what I expect—and the polls are moving—will be a positive yes result on 18 September. Scottish MPs should of course vacate this place when powers over Scotland are returned to Scotland, which is at present expected to be on 24 March 2016.
	In reference to last week’s ten-minute rule Bill—Representation of the People (Scotland)—which was defeated in this House on a Division, some Members from non-Scottish seats seem to be in a greater hurry for independence, and in seeking to remove the franchise from Scottish people, to be moving independence to May 2015, 10 months earlier. If Scots no longer pay tax to the Treasury in London and our laws are no longer decided here, it would surely be an affront to democracy to have the spectre of non-Scottish taxpayers of the rUK—the rump or the rest of the United Kingdom—paying the salaries of MPs and staff. It would be the ultimate power without responsibility for a class of MPs without constituency duties, whose actions would be without consequences, to be paid for by the constituents of other Members, while their own constituents had moved on to build a successful Scotland and to develop an oil fund on the model of Norway.
	This Bill seeks to give clarity to what will happen in this place post-independence. The state would also save £50 million, a step that I am sure would be very welcome. A journalist asked me yesterday whether I thought that some Scottish MPs would seek to cling on to the trappings of Westminster. I hope not, but I fear that some are putting career and power games at Westminster to the fore. I believe that it is more important to seek to improve lives in some of the most deprived parts of Scotland, to end poverty and child poverty, and to increase hope and opportunity.
	Given that 200,000 jobs in the UK are now dependent on trade with a successful and independent Republic of Ireland—indeed, trade has never been higher between the UK and the Republic of Ireland—I hope that Scotland will similarly bring benefits to and improve lives in England, especially for our friends in the north of England with whom, just like the Irish, we share so much; except, we hope, a Government in London, thank you.
	It is important for this House to speak clearly on things as people have the right to know how things will be after a positive yes result in September. Sadly, too many in the Government in London have not given mature and reflective consideration to what would happen post-independence. There has been a pattern. Initially, there was talk of any referendum following the SNP landslide victory of 2011—it formed the only majority Government anywhere in these islands—being a non-starter or even illegal, beyond the competence of the Scottish Parliament. When it became obvious that the referendum was going to happen anyway, Westminster then reacted late but correctly in reaching the Edinburgh agreement. The process in Scotland has lately been described by President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and the Foreign Minister of Poland, to name but three in a diverse bunch, as a model of how to go about such matters in a decent and civilised manner.
	The negativity continued, however, and the Chancellor and his cohorts warned darkly that the referendum would deter investment in Scotland. I am pleased to tell
	the House that the opposite has happened. The scare stories are continuing. We are well used to that in Scotland. Whether it was the paltry assembly suggested in 1979, the Scots Parliament in 1997 or the election of the first SNP Government in 2007, we were told that the sky would fall in. Frankly, the sky has not fallen in; indeed, the sun has shone more strongly and brightly with all those institutions happily going from strength to strength over the years.
	Why has there been that negativity? Instead of engagement, such as the important tidying up that this Bill seeks to do, the powers that be in Westminster and Whitehall are not thinking clearly and rationally about Scotland, but mainly have late thoughts and make very much knee-jerk reactions to events in Scotland that sound panicked and out of touch. Thankfully, I can report that not all hon. Members feel like that. Privately, many are relaxed about Scottish independence and very kindly wish us well—we could not have better friends and neighbours, as we move to independence—and many more would support the Bill if they did not have to deal with other pressing matters within their parties.
	The powers that be still insist on the scare stories, the most notable being about the currency union. Even Tory Back Benchers do not believe these scares, as viewers of S4C in Wales will know. This weekend, Nicholas Watt of The Guardian found a similarly minded Government or Cabinet Minister, who believed a currency union was doable. Even those leading the no campaign, who maintain on one hand that having no currency union is an iron law, are saying on the other hand that a referendum about it is possible, oblivious to their earlier words on the matter. There is now a lot of rust on their iron law against Scotland, and polls show anyway that the people do not believe them.
	The Bill is a plea for maturity and responsibility, for those in both Governments—Edinburgh and London—to sit round the table. I know that the Scottish Government are willing to do so. Both Governments should plan for and inform the people about the possibilities. Keeping such matters secret from the people in a democracy is surely an affront to that very democracy, and that weakens us all collectively when we proclaim the merits of democracy around the world. In the Lords, Lord Forsyth recently called—on 3 March—on the Government to anticipate events, and not just on the currency, and I agree with him.
	A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure—quite accidentally—of greeting the Irish Prime Minister, the Taoiseach Enda Kenny, in the House of Commons. We chatted in Gaelic, a unique hybrid of Scots and Irish, you might say, Mr Speaker. It transpired that he had been to Downing street, where both sides had declared that relations had never been better between Dublin and London. They agreed on a variety of things, including joint trade missions to Singapore, moves to have common visas for people travelling from China or India to the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and cutting deals on renewable energy.
	This House has changed and no one here thinks that Ireland should not be independent, or, indeed, the 50 other nations of Europe that have contributed to the fourfold increase in the number of independent nations worldwide, which is now at 200. Europe now has as many independent nations as the world had 100 years
	ago. As Professor Steven Pinker says, there has never been a safer place for a human being to be alive in history than Europe right now.
	Scotland is following that successful tide of history. The tide indicates that Scotland will be independent. Something is happening in Scotland: an ancient nation is awakening to regain its statehood and to use its talents and resources for its people and to help and benefit others outwith our nation. The House, at the very least, should be aware of that and plan. Members should have watched the report by Martin Geissler on ITN a week last Thursday, which showed that people are returning to the electoral roll in droves after the poll tax debacle of 25 years ago. The yes campaign believes that that is for a purpose.
	Scottish people want oil taxes to be controlled in Scotland, all general taxes to be controlled in Scotland, welfare to be controlled in Scotland, and decisions on whether our young men and women are involved in foreign wars to be controlled in Scotland. That is what we call independence and that is what we are moving towards. Scotland wants and needs to be part of those domestic and international realities. The Scottish people can do this, the Scottish people should do this and Scotland must do this. This is where Scotland is going. For the good of us all and to bring clarity, fairness and democracy, I commend the Bill to the House, even though it would make me unemployed.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil, Angus Robertson, Pete Wishart, Mr Mike Weir, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Hywel Williams, Jonathan Edwards, Caroline Lucas, David T. C. Davies and Andrew Percy present the Bill.
	Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be printed (Bill 196).

Opposition Day

[Un-allotted Half Day]
	 — 
	Energy Price Freeze

Mr Speaker: I should inform the House that I have not selected the amendment.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the decision to refer the energy market to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for investigation; believes that this confirms that the energy market is broken; notes that this investigation could take up to 18 months and will not report until late 2015; further notes the decision by Scottish and Southern Energy to freeze electricity and gas prices until 2016; further believes that all households and businesses should be protected from any more unfair price rises while the CMA investigation is ongoing; and calls on the Government to freeze electricity and gas prices whilst the energy market is reformed to improve transparency, competition and accountability.
	Last week, the House had a brief opportunity to debate the decision to refer the energy market for a full market investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority. That decision was confirmation, if ever it was needed, that Britain’s energy market is broken and that radical action is required. If it helps get to the bottom of exactly what has gone wrong with the market and goes some way towards restoring consumers’ trust, it is to be welcomed.
	However, Ministers should be honest with the House today that a market investigation alone offers little comfort to consumers who are struggling now, because it leaves them in the bizarre position of being told that competition in the market is not working and the prices that they pay are not fair, but that nothing will be done about it for two years. First, Ofgem has to consult on whether it should refer the energy market to the CMA. That will take two months. It will then have to consider all the responses and publish a final decision. That could take another month. Only then, which is likely to be the end of June at the very earliest, will Ofgem refer the matter formally to the CMA. The CMA investigation will then begin and that could take another 18 months.
	Today, therefore, I present to the House a simple motion with a simple proposal: while the investigation is ongoing, and while the energy market is being reformed, consumers should be protected from any more unfair price rises—not a voluntary price freeze by one company that benefits only some customers, but a price freeze for all households and small businesses.
	Time after time we have seen that voluntary approaches do not work. Consider the way that companies failed to pass on reductions in wholesale costs, and the way they sat on hundreds of millions of pounds of direct debit overpayments. Those companies have only ever changed their behaviour when forced to do so, and the Government should learn the lessons of those experiences and intervene to require all suppliers to freeze their prices. As we have said many times before, that would not prevent companies from cutting prices, but it would stop them from increasing them. The Government have the power to do that, and if they did so they would have our support. Although SSE’s decision to freeze its prices until 2016 may not go
	far enough and may exclude small businesses, it is clear evidence from within the industry that a price freeze is possible.

Stephen Mosley: The right hon. Lady says that she supports a price freeze, but the Government have announced a £50 cut to energy bills. Would Labour reverse that?

Caroline Flint: I am afraid that despite the Government’s tampering, bills have gone up by an average of £60. Furthermore, as a result of the Government’s tinkering, according to their impact assessment some 400,000 homes will not receive energy insulation. That is not something to stand up and crow about.
	Hon. Members may recall that there were those who said that a price freeze was unworkable and impossible to deliver. It is not normally in my nature to name and shame people when their arguments have been well and truly demolished—[Hon. Members: “Go on!”] Okay. On this occasion, in the interests of openness and transparency, I am obliged to remind the House of what the Secretary of State said. This is the man who told the House last week:
	“We have never said that the big six could not have a price freeze.”,—[Official Report, 27 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 479.]
	However, on the day my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made his speech to the Labour party conference, the Secretary of State said:
	“Fixing prices in this way risks blackouts, jeopardises jobs and puts investment in clean, green technology in doubt”.
	Last week, he said that SSE’s decision to fix prices was “good news”. He added:
	“Let’s hope”
	—I emphasise hope—
	“some of the other companies now follow.”
	It may be in the Secretary of State’s nature to follow, but it is in mine to lead. If he wants energy companies to freeze their prices, as he told the public last week, he should not wait for them: he should do it now.
	I take the security of our energy supply seriously. That is why the collapse in investment under this Government is so worrying and why there has been so much concern about the length of time it took to get contracts for difference in place, and how long it is still taking to get the capacity market up and running—policies we have supported. That is why in government we will establish a dedicated energy security board. However, a Labour Government will not be held to ransom, and neither must the Secretary of State.

Guy Opperman: Does the right hon. Lady accept that an externally imposed price freeze does not control overseas supply or energy prices?

Caroline Flint: The price freeze we have suggested is in recognition of the dodgy dealing that has been going on, and we have proof of the fact that when wholesale prices have gone down, they have not been passed on to the consumer. If the hon. Gentleman does not get that, he will not win at the next general election.
	The Government were wrong about our price freeze, and today is their chance to atone for their error. They have been wrong about much else besides. The Secretary of State likes to claim that Labour created the big six,
	but who botched the privatisation of our utilities, sold off our country’s assets for much less than they were worth, and removed the restriction on vertical integration? It was not us; it was the previous Conservative Government. As this week’s revelations about Royal Mail remind us, they are the same old Tories. They might think they know how to run a business, but they are not fit to govern.

Edward Davey: It is not normally that I come to some colleagues’ defences, but since the right hon. Lady is talking about privatisation, which party lifted price controls on energy markets, and when?

Caroline Flint: It was a recommendation from Ofgem that we want to abolish. It was wrong and it did not work, and I will get to that point. Unlike the Secretary of State, I came to this job to look seriously at what has gone wrong in the energy market, and since privatisation over 30 years ago, mistakes have been made. Mistakes are being made now that could be put right if the Secretary of State had the gumption to do it, but he does not.

Andrew Gwynne: The price freeze that my right hon. Friend is proposing is not an end in itself. Is not the fundamental problem that the big six supply energy to 97% of homes and control 70% of power generation in this country? That means that people cannot shop around and often get overcharged. Do we need the price freeze so that we can begin the process of resetting the market?

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend is right. It is a temporary price freeze while we reform the market and restore faith and trust. That is absolutely necessary for the journey we are asking the British public to continue with us in relation to energy.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: I will give way shortly but I want to make a little progress.
	The Secretary of State lauds the days when there were 15 energy suppliers, as if it were some nirvana of competition where consumers had choice, customer service was great, and bills were low. He does not mention that the reason there were 15 suppliers was because there were 14 regional electricity suppliers, each with a complete monopoly in their own area, and only one gas supplier, which had a monopoly across the entire country. Consumers had no choice at all; nobody could switch, and that was that. Who gave ordinary consumers the power to choose who supplied their electricity, and who tried to open up the energy market to full retail competition? It was the previous Labour Government.

Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: I will give way shortly but I want to make this point. The Secretary of State also boasts that on his watch 18 new entrants are challenging the dominance of the big six. He is right: 18 other suppliers are in the domestic market, but when did they enter it? When did
	companies such as Good Energy, First Utility, and Ovo Energy enter the market? Was it under this Government? No, it was not—it was under the previous Labour Government.

Martin Horwood: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: I will finish this point. Good Energy: 2003; First Utility: 2008; OVO: 2009. In total, there were not just six suppliers in 2010, as the Secretary of State likes to say, there were 14, and in recent years the growth of those companies has begun to erode the market share of the big six.
	Yes, there are more suppliers out there challenging the incumbents, and the market share of the big six is down from a huge 99% to a still pretty massive 95%, but that is no thanks to the Secretary of State. If he does not even understand the problems with our energy market, why should anybody trust him to fix it? Let us not forget that the only reason we are having this debate, and the only reason the energy market has been referred to the Competition and Markets Authority, is the way in which Labour, along with others, has stood up for customers and refused to be silenced.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Clearly, the right hon. Lady has thought carefully about the implications of a price freeze. What discussions has she had with trade unions and the energy industry about the possibility, should there be a price freeze, of a demand for a wages and salary freeze in the energy industry?

Caroline Flint: The energy companies have clearly been making profits that have not been reflected in efficiencies in their organisations or a fair trade off between what they should spend on getting bills down and investment. I believe in this sector and that its potential growth is enormous. The truth, however, is that staff in those organisations are not served well by a management that refuses to faces up to its responsibilities to provide good customer service and efficient services in which everyone can gain. The only people gaining at the moment are the big six chief executives and their management boards, and those who benefit from the profits they have made—unfair profits that have not been passed on and shared with consumers and investment.

Edward Davey: I am pleased that the Labour party now supports the market investigation reference. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that that was not the case a few months ago, and that when the Leader of the Opposition was doing my job and had a chance to take such action, he did not?

Caroline Flint: In 2011, Labour, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), a previous Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, supported a full market investigation. The former Secretary of State opposed that. [Interruption.] No, I am sorry, but this is a very important point. Labour supported an investigation two and a half years ago and the Government opposed it. Labour then looked at ways of reforming the market, short of a CMA. The truth is that we welcome the CMA, but we also know
	that we should not allow this issue to be kicked into the long grass. We should be planning our reforms now. The Secretary of State cannot ignore that.
	The Secretary of State told the House in a statement last week that the energy market has improved since 2010. Ofgem’s assessment shows precisely the opposite: things have got worse since 2010, not better. Apart from a spike in switching in a couple of months at the end of 2013—which I have to say had more to do with the Leader of the Opposition’s speech at the Labour conference than anything the Government did—the number of people of switching has fallen. The latest statistics, published by the Government last week, show that 2013 was the second-worst year on record for the level of switching. The spike at the end of 2013 appears to have been completely reversed.
	Small suppliers have been gaining customers and their market share has been growing, but paragraph 5.16 of Ofgem’s assessment is clear that last year, for example, half the so-called growth in market share for smaller suppliers actually resulted from npower selling Telecom Plus, which just so happens to have a 20-year contract with npower for its energy supply. In any case, as figures 28 and 29 show, the overall rate at which suppliers have been winning customers has fallen. Figure 39 of Ofgem’s assessment also clearly shows that the total amount of energy being traded has fallen in each year since the general election, as has the churn rate.
	The only things that have increased on this Government’s watch are people’s bills and the profits of the big energy companies, which, paragraph 6.10 of the report notes, have increased five-fold in the last three years—up from just £200 million in 2009 to £1.2 billion in 2012. Let us not forget the increase in households in fuel poverty, and the growing queue of people who cannot get their home insulated after the Government’s tinkering with bills last autumn. The Secretary of State must be so proud.
	The notion that the energy market is, as the Secretary of State puts it, “improving”, is very obviously wrong. What the report shows, and again I quote directly from section 4, is that
	“things are getting worse for consumers.”
	That is the conclusion of the report; and that is a verdict on this Government’s record.

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Lady mentioned Good Energy. I met Good Energy this morning and it is quite clear that Labour’s policy would cause it real problems as a small green supplier. Is not the truth that this would be bad for competition, and, as it wrote to the right hon. Lady, that it treats the symptom not the cause?

Caroline Flint: I am not surprised that energy suppliers, big or small, do not like having their prices frozen. I would be surprised if they did support it. However, when Stephen Fitzpatrick, the chief executive of Ovo, was asked whether it would affect his company model, he said:
	“No I don’t think so, we set up our business to make sure that we are able to pass on the greatest amount of savings possible to energy customers.”
	When asked, “Will you be affected?” he replied:
	“No I think it will probably be great for our business to see any kind of pressure put on the big six.”
	The same goes for Co-operative Energy. The big prize for Good Energy, Co-operative Energy, Ovo and the others is a reforming of the market to ensure that they have greater access to the products they wish to sell. There is a big prize for them that many of them support through our reforms.

Barry Sheerman: I hesitate to interrupt a very good speech. Those of us who support the reference to the CMA worry that there will be another 18 months—there will be a new Government, which will obviously be a Labour Government—when we still will not have tackled the deep disaster of the mess that the Conservative party made of the privatisation of the energy sector. We need a fundamental look at energy, root and branch.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend is right. In the statement last week, I thought he made a very fair contribution, saying, “Look, there are real problems here that we all have to acknowledge, address and deal with.” I welcome the reference to the CMA, but we cannot allow the silence that some Government Members would now like to follow on this issue of public importance. That is why we have to draw a line in the sand and have a freeze. It is also why we should get on with some of the other ways in which we can address the reforms that are necessary in this market. I have been very open that there may be aspects of the CMA investigation into this murky world that will find other issues that Labour has yet to look at and that might be helpful to our reform programme. I very much welcome that, but we cannot allow this issue to be kicked into the long grass.
	The report clearly highlights the need for reform in our energy market, as we have made clear for the last three years. It identifies five significant problems that are preventing consumers from enjoying the full benefits of competition. None of them is new.

Jim Shannon: In Northern Ireland, there are just two electricity companies: Power NI and Airtricity. Last year, Power NI put up its prices by 14%. Does the right hon. Lady feel that it is time we had a more open market with more suppliers, so that the price can come down, and that the sooner that happens, the sooner we can take advantage of that?

Caroline Flint: I absolutely agree, which is why one of our proposals is to create an electricity pool or power exchange whereby all energy for that sector is put into a pool, enabling anybody to come in and compete on price to retail. Small suppliers, and, I have to say, increasingly some of the bigger players, recognise that this idea is making some headway in the discussions on what the future should offer. We look to Northern Ireland and other countries to learn from their experiences. We do not operate in a bubble; it is worth looking elsewhere for ideas.
	The report identifies five significant problems. Many of them were things that Labour Members raised in the eight previous Opposition day debates on this issue and that feature in our Green Paper. The first problem is weak competition. Companies are able to increase their profit margins at will, without any obvious efficiencies
	or improvement in customer service. They are simply getting away with passing on cost increases, but not cost reductions.
	The second problem is market segmentation: suppliers enjoying big market shares in their old monopoly areas, and companies charging some customers, particularly loyal customers, significantly more than others, even though they are providing them with an identical product. Thirdly, there is tacit co-ordination between suppliers: price announcements, normally increases of similar amounts, being announced at the same time and with growing lead-in times. Fourthly, there are barriers to entry and expansion for new players in the market. In particular, the lack of liquidity in the wholesale market makes it difficult for non-integrated players to access power at competitive prices. The fifth problem is weak customer pressure: low and declining levels of customer trust in this market.
	That is the final reason a price freeze is so important. Yes, it is about compensating consumers for overcharging in the past. Yes, it is about protecting them from any more unfair price rises while the market is being reformed for the future, but it is also a line in the sand. It tells the companies that their days of overcharging are over, and it tells consumers that the rules of the game have changed for good. It tells them that the rules are no longer set by six giant companies, but by one Government acting for the many not the mighty few.

Kerry McCarthy: Did not Ofgem identify—in, I think 2008—16 things it thought was wrong with the energy market? It admitted, in 2011, that 12 of them had got worse or had stayed the same. Is it not key to have an energy watchdog that stands up for consumers, takes on the big six and rectifies the issues my right hon. Friend has identified?

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to recent Ofgem investigations. In fact, in the past six years I think it has had three major investigations: on supply, the retail market and the wholesale market. It has failed to get to grips with the real problem. We have seen piecemeal changes that are just not having any impact. Even when there were recommendations about the market and how it could be reformed, it did not take them on board. It is only recently that it seems to be waking up to that.
	Ultimately, competition will work only if companies are constrained by the fear of losing customers if they increase their prices too much. Consumers will be prepared to engage in the market, to invest their time and effort to secure the best deal, only if they believe the market is fair and if there are proper rules in place to prevent them from being ripped-off. We should be honest, too, that switching cannot be the only metric of a healthy market. There will always be those for whom regular switching is not a reality, either because they do not have the confidence to switch, even in a simplified system, or because they may have the confidence, but are time-poor and seem to spend their whole life switching from one thing to another. A healthy market must be a managed market, and that is why the price freeze is so important.

Sharon Hodgson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned Ofgem a moment
	ago. In its report on energy prices, profits and fuel poverty, the Select Committee said that Ofgem was “failing consumers”, and had not been properly using the powers at its disposal. Last December, the Secretary of State said that Ofgem was “fit for purpose”. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Caroline Flint: I agree with the Select Committee, and I do not agree with the Secretary of State. I shall come to the question of why the role of Ofgem has been omitted from the market investigation, because it is a very important part of the future reform of the sector.
	As my hon. Friends have pointed out, our motion makes clear that the price freeze would be only a temporary measure during the reform of the energy market. However, the House should be in no doubt about the fact that the public have heard Labour’s case for reform, and they want change. The companies have heard our case as well. Alistair Phillips-Davies, chief executive of SSE, said last week that the Leader of the Opposition had
	“changed the way people look at the energy market”.
	That is why, last week, SSE announced not just a price freeze until 2016 but that it would legally separate its supply business from its generation businesses, which is what we had called for. At least two other firms claim that they already operate in that way.
	What we cannot have is companies going away—perhaps in an attempt to pre-empt reforms that they know are coming—and leaving the public with six versions of what reform looks like. These reforms need to be consistent, led by the Government, and backed up by proper powers of enforcement. Our Green Paper proposes a number of significant reforms, namely a ring fence between generation and supply, an end to secret trades and self-supply, the introduction of a pool in which all generators and all suppliers can compete openly and on price, new powers to penalise anti-competitive behaviour and protect consumers, new protections for off-grid customers and small businesses—2 million rural customers and millions of businesses will be properly protected for the first time—and simpler and fairer tariffs.

David Mowat: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: No. I have already given way quite generously, and others wish to speak.
	Last week’s report and the decision to initiate a full market investigation only serve to highlight how important and urgent the process of reform is. Of course the CMA will undertake its independent investigation and reach its own conclusions, but if there are measures that we could take now to improve the market and make it work better for consumers, we should take them.
	There was one subject on which Ofgem’s report was—perhaps unsurprisingly— silent: the role and performance of Ofgem itself. In recent months, much attention has rightly been focused on the behaviour of the energy companies: the prices they have charged, and the way in which they have mistreated their customers. However, companies operate only within the framework set by the regulator. When we challenge these companies over their behaviour, it is only right for us to assess the
	responsibility of the regulator itself for allowing the very market conditions that it now laments to come to pass in the first place.
	I have challenged the Secretary of State on that point many times in the past, and so far he has been a steadfast defender of Ofgem. As was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), on 2 December last year he told the House:
	“Ofgem is fit for purpose.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 634.]
	On 4 September, he said that he disagreed with my statement that Ofgem was not using its powers. However, the very fact that Ofgem has chosen to refer the market to the CMA represents a clear admission that it has not been able to regulate the market properly and protect consumers. Had it been able to do so, there would have been no need for a full market investigation.
	Let me put my question to the Secretary of State again. Does he feel that Ofgem should remain as it is, or does he agree with me that we need to abolish it and establish a new, tougher regulator? Markets must have rules, and if we are undertaking a proper market investigation, surely it is necessary to consider carefully the process by which those rules are set and how they are enforced. If we win the next election, we will scrap Ofgem and create a tough new regulator, but even those who take a different view must surely now accept that the performance of Ofgem is a legitimate matter for the CMA itself to investigate.
	I care about this sector. I want it to do well, to serve its customers well, and to treat its staff well. Given the transition to a smarter, lower-carbon economy, it has the potential to be a massive success story for our country, but if we are to take the country with us on that journey, people must have faith in the market and the regulation that underpins it. There are those who say that politicians should not interfere, but they are wrong. I did not come to this brief with a prepared agenda, but what I discovered about the way in which the energy market works, and the history of its botched privatisation, shocked me. Yes, the energy market is a free market, but a free market works only when there are proper rules to ensure competition and fair play, and it falls to us, as politicians, to set those rules.
	Let me make a prediction. The energy market will change: it will be reformed. The public will pay a fair price for their energy, and after that painful process of reform, some of the energy companies will thank us for restoring the public’s trust in their industry. The question before the House, however, is this: will the Government help to make that happen, or will they stand on the sidelines doing nothing? Will they vacillate, play for time, and hope that the problem is kicked into the long grass before the next election, so that fixing it will become the job of another Minister? This is decision time. Will the Government act decisively in the consumer’s interest, or will they fail the test again, as they have done so many times before?
	Today we can send a clear message that the days of rip-off energy bills are over. Should we freeze bills until the market is fixed for the future? That is the decision that we now face. There must be no more running away. It is time for the Government to do their job: it is time
	for them to govern. I urge all Members who care about the unfairness of energy bills to join us in the Lobby this afternoon, and I commend the motion to the House.

Edward Davey: When we debated this same topic in November last year, I said that I would welcome every opportunity to debate the best way in which to help people and improve Britain’s energy markets, so I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for at last returning to the topic—not least because we took another huge step forward last week with the publication of the first annual competition assessment, an assessment that we had commissioned, and Ofgem’s proposal to refer the energy market to the Competition and Markets Authority for a full market investigation.
	We are supporting a step forward for the consumer that the last Government ducked time and again. We now have an independent, impartial, evidence-based, fair and just process for ensuring that the markets are working properly for consumers. I am delighted that the official Opposition have changed their minds and backed us on that, but today I want to address directly the question at hand, which is whether there should be a Government-imposed energy price freeze in the meantime. Quite simply, my answer to that question is no, because it would not work, and, in fact, would hurt the consumer.
	We do not need an investment-damaging, Government-imposed, heavy-handed, blanket price freeze anyway, because the markets are already responding to the Government’s actions, sometimes by cutting prices. Following our action at the end of last year to reduce bills by an annual average of £50—a move that the right hon. Lady seemed to oppose yet again today—the rises that were announced by the companies last year have been reduced, and, as a result, all the major energy companies have said that there should be no need to raise prices this year. Some companies have gone further: npower has pledged that there will be no further price rises for customers on standard variable tariffs until at least the spring of 2015, and SSE has said that, owing to the Government’s actions, it will not raise standard variable tariffs until 2016 at the earliest. By acting properly, this Government—unlike their predecessor—have made the energy companies start bearing down on the prices that people pay.

Margot James: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Scottish and Southern Energy price freeze, which will be greatly welcomed by my constituents. In her opening remarks, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) quoted the chief executive of that company. I wonder whether she, and my right hon. Friend, are aware that the company stated clearly last week:
	“An externally-imposed 20-month price freeze would not reduce the costs of supplying energy.”
	There are many reasons for that, which I hope my right hon. Friend will proceed to enunciate.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is quite right. SSE’s press release made it clear that its price freeze had come about because of this Government’s actions.
	When the energy companies next consider price rises, they will do so in the face of an imminent report by the Competition and Markets Authority, to be published in 2015. We shall then be able to consider, on the basis of proper evidence and tough action and advice from the independent competition experts, how best to reform our energy markets further to help customers. Of course, if there were a huge shift in wholesale prices or network costs between now and that point, we would expect the energy companies to respond, so let us think about what would happen in that circumstance under the Opposition’s plans put forward today. For the sake of debate, let us do a thought experiment.

Paul Flynn: rose—

Edward Davey: If the hon. Gentleman wants to come in with a thought experiment, that will be very welcome.

Paul Flynn: The right hon. Gentleman talked about shifts in the wholesale price. What effect does he think imported and home-produced shale gas will have on prices in the United Kingdom in the next five and 10 years?

Edward Davey: I think it will have hardly any effect, if any effect at all. The case for shale gas is to do with energy security, as I have made clear many times.
	Returning to my thought experiment, let us imagine what would happen if there were a legally imposed price freeze—prices frozen by the state, not by individual firms. What would happen if wholesale prices shot up? Let us say Russia invades Ukraine and gas prices in Europe shoot up. Would a Labour Government keep prices frozen then? I do not know if they are sure themselves. The right hon. Member for Don Valley might want to confirm whether they would keep prices frozen then. Their price freeze is not really a price freeze; it is a con. Let us assume, however, that whatever happened to wholesale gas markets and prices, they would freeze prices. The truth is that would hit the small players and play into the hands of the big six. As Ian McCaig, chief executive of First Utility, the largest of the new independents, said:
	“Bluntly, it could put me under… How am I going to absorb those costs? I only retail, I don’t generate. The answer is, I can’t.”

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Edward Davey: Maybe the hon. Gentleman will tell me how small suppliers would cope.

Barry Sheerman: I think it was Harold Macmillan who said, “Events dear boy, events.” Of course there will be major events—ones that we could not predict at this moment—but I know the right hon. Gentleman to be an honest gentleman so he must acknowledge that the real difference—it changed the whole momentum of this debate—was the speech at the Labour party conference by the Leader of the Opposition.

Edward Davey: That is simply not true. We were reforming the markets from day one because we had inherited the big six from the Labour party.
	Let us return to the small independent competitors. In its response to Labour’s Green Paper, Good Energy said:
	“The proposed price freeze poses a disproportionate impact for smaller companies such as ourselves as we do not have the same level of vertical integration as the big 6 which allows us to control our costs.”
	If raw energy costs rise during a freeze, vertically integrated firms with deep pockets can withstand a profits squeeze, but smaller, retail-only firms would go bankrupt. Result: reduced competitive pressure on the big six and higher overall prices when the freeze comes to an end.

John Redwood: Given the very high cost of wind energy, does the Secretary of State think there should now be some limit on the subsidy going to that sector to try and keep bills down?

Edward Davey: There is a limit, of course. The right hon. Gentleman ought to follow this debate more closely. Indeed, we have reduced subsidies and our policy is to reduce them still further.
	The truth is that, rather than helping consumers, Labour’s price freeze is a pro-big six policy. For all the bluster about taking on the big six, the right hon. Member for Don Valley is just playing into their hands. If Labour makes the smaller competitors go bankrupt, the people who will enjoy that are the big six, and the right hon. Lady knows that.

Alan Whitehead: As part of the right hon. Gentlemen’s thought experiment, has he considered how far down the curve the very large energy companies purchase the bulk of their forward energy supplies and the relationship between that forward purchase and small energy companies purchasing on the back of larger purchases than necessary for the obligations of the large energy companies? How does that fit in with this thought experiment about small energy companies going bust if large energy companies are buying so far ahead of the curve?

Edward Davey: It fits in exactly, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. The larger companies can buy 18 months ahead, so if there is a rise in wholesale gas prices, they are hedged—they are protected. The smaller companies find it much harder to buy ahead, so if the wholesale prices go up, they get crushed. That is the truth about Labour’s policy. It may seem popular in Labour’s focus groups, but I am afraid it has not been thought through. As The Guardian said, it is “good politics”, but it is “bad policy”.

Fiona O'Donnell: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman’s thought experiment had started when he drove his Energy Act 2013 through Parliament, which he certainly took plenty of time to do. Can he point to one single measure in that Act which has increased and supported competition?

Edward Davey: I am glad that the hon. Lady has mentioned the Energy Act 2013, because she voted for it. If she looks at the detail, she will see that not only did it reform Ofgem by giving it more powers to grant compensation to consumers who were badly treated,
	but it supported Ofgem’s retail and wholesale market reforms by having reserved powers to make sure they went through. Those powers are in place and are making sure those reforms go through.
	I was talking about Labour’s bad energy policy, and let us look at its record in government on energy markets and prices. In the retail markets, Labour allowed the big companies to choke off proper competition—the very competition that privatised markets need in order to operate in the interests of consumers. It created Labour’s big six—the big six that dominate retail and wholesale markets.

Caroline Flint: As I said in my speech, when we left government there were 18 suppliers including the big six, and also it was under Labour that we gave the first opportunity for people to switch. Is it not the case that there were more than just six suppliers when we left government? Is it not also the case, as confirmed by the House of Commons Library, that energy bills have risen three times faster under this Government than under the last Government?

Edward Davey: I will come to that point in a second because I do not believe that is true; I have got completely different figures. The right hon. Lady is right to say, however, that it was not just the big six who were competing in the retail market. There were at that time eight other independent suppliers—there are more now, as we have increased the number. However, the critical figure is not the number of energy suppliers, it is how many customers they have. Under Labour, the small suppliers were not able to grow. Very few—only one, I think—had more than 100,000 customers, and they were not able to expand. What we did very early in our time was deregulate, and because we deregulated, those independent suppliers were able to grow their customer base. So it has been the actions of this Government that have increased the competitive pressure on the big six—it is nothing to do with the last Government.

Zac Goldsmith: On the issue of competition, in 2009 Ofgem introduced licence lite, the purpose of which was to enable small community generators to use the local grid in order to access customers directly. Since then, however, no permits have been issued, and the community energy generators still have to rely on selling their product through the national grid at wholesale prices. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to boost competition in this sector, which is the obvious answer in terms of prices, those community energy generators should have guaranteed access to the grid at an agreed fee so that they can benefit from doing deals directly with local customers?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right: the licence lite introduced under the last Government has not been working very well. However, the Greater London authority has been talking to Ofgem to see if it can get a licence lite for London in order to help community generators and act as a sort of enabler. When we were drawing up the community energy strategy—which has not been mentioned in a single question from Opposition Members—we sat around the table and looked at this issue and we realised that this needs to continue further. So if my hon. Friend looks at the community energy strategy, he will see that we are taking action. We have
	set up a working group to look at it—not just to take on the licence lite issue, which was so badly handled under the last Government, but to see what else we can do to help precisely the people my hon. Friend is talking about.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	The right hon. Member for Don Valley says from a sedentary position that Ofgem is failing again. Let us remind the House who set up Ofgem: it was Labour. Let us remind Labour and the rest of the House that when the Leader of the Opposition was doing my job, he reformed Ofgem to make it function more in the interests of the consumer. That was just a few years ago, so perhaps the right hon. Lady will tell us what went wrong with Ofgem under Labour.

Caroline Flint: As everybody knows, Ofgem was a merger of the gas and electricity regulators. The difference between the Secretary of State and me is that I am prepared to acknowledge when things are not working, and he is not. When is he going to stop defending a regulator that has not been doing its job?

Edward Davey: This is good—let us examine what the right hon. Lady wants to do. She wants to abolish a regulator quango and replace it with another one. She promises lots of tougher powers but never tells us what they are. We have legislated in the Energy Act 2013 to increase the powers. She needs to tell us why, under this Government, Ofgem has been far more proactive on competition. Why was it that under this Government, Ofgem undertook the retail market review? Why was it that under this Government, it addressed the wholesale market, and when we debated its reforms the right hon. Lady had to admit that she had not even read its paper?

Caroline Flint: rose—

Edward Davey: Do tell us about reforms to competition, because Labour is behind the curve on every single one of them.

Caroline Flint: Honestly, the Secretary of State is just living inside his own thought bubble. We have made very clear on countless occasions some of the changes we would expect to see under a tough new regulator, as I reiterated today. One significant power would be that if our regulator saw that reductions in wholesale costs were not being passed on to the customer, there would be a statutory power to enable it to force them to be passed on if the energy companies do not play ball. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that?

Edward Davey: I agree with the market investigation reference looking at all those issues. Not only is the Labour party’s policy position behind the curve, as I will explain in a second; it wants to pre-judge the outcome of the conclusion reached by the competition authorities. We have expert, independent competition authorities that will look at these issues in a considered way, but Labour wants to pre-judge them. That is not surprising, however, because its policies in this area are so hopeless.
	The right hon. Lady talks about a pool. She does not know that the day-ahead market, which is very much like a pool and was trading only 5% of electricity when Labour was in power, is now trading over 50% of electricity—a massive increase in liquidity in the day-ahead market. Moreover, the Ofgem analysis, which the right
	hon. Lady clearly still has not read, shows that the small independent generators that would benefit from more liquidity said that the problem is not in the day-ahead market, and that the pool would not help; rather, the real problem is with the liquidity in the forward market, and that is exactly what Ofgem is dealing with. As of this month, the market maker obligation will create far greater transparency than ever existed in the markets under the last Government. Whether it is through Ofgem or this Government, we are taking action—real action—to bring in competition where Labour did nothing.

Andrew Gwynne: The Secretary of State talks the talk on competition. I know he is a Liberal Democrat, but does he not regret that the Energy Act, which took more than a year to complete its legislative passage, did not contain a single concrete measure to improve competition in the wholesale or retail energy markets?

Edward Davey: That is simply not true. I have talked about the powers to back up Ofgem on the retail market and wholesale market review, which clearly the hon. Gentleman either does not understand or did not notice. For example, there is the power of the off-taker of last resort to promote greater competition in the generating market. I do not know where Labour Members have been, but they certainly have not been focusing on the debate.
	The right hon. Member for Don Valley asked me about energy prices under the last Government and this one, so let us go through them. We should not fall into the trap of simply blaming the energy markets and Labour’s big six for higher energy bills. Let us be honest: everyone in this House knows that the main driver of energy price rises in recent years has been rising wholesale costs. The average wholesale gas price in 2013 was more than double that of 2007. [Interruption.] I will say that again, because the right hon. Lady was not listening. The average wholesale gas price in 2013 was more than double that of 2007. The wholesale electricity price was up by almost two thirds. According to DECC statistics, in almost every year under Labour, energy bills rose. Under Labour in 2005, energy bills went up by 12%. In 2006 under Labour, energy bills went up by 20%. In 2008 under Labour, energy bills went up by 16%. In the last Parliament under Labour, energy bills rose by a whopping 63%. In this Parliament, yes, they have risen, but at a significantly lower rate than in the last Parliament, when the current Leader of the Opposition was Energy Secretary—8% a year in this Parliament compared with 11% a year in the last.

Caroline Flint: I asked the House of Commons Library to look into this issue on Monday, and it confirmed that energy bills are rising more than three times faster under this Government than they did under the last Government. The Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that prices are rising at twice the rate of inflation. We can bandy around figures all we like—the truth is that people want fair prices. They are prepared to pay a fair price if they think the market is not fixed, and the Secretary of State has failed to attempt to deal with that situation, which is of great concern to the British public.

Edward Davey: The problem with the right hon. Lady’s analysis is that she fails to understand that the wholesale gas market drives the vast majority of the bill. I set out
	that history to show that when wholesale gas and electricity prices were going up—actually, faster under the last Government than this one—we were not saying that it was all the fault of the energy companies; a lot of the fault lay with wholesale gas and raw energy costs. Frankly, the right hon. Lady’s unwillingness to recognise that demeans her, because it shows that she is not dealing with the real problem and could not really do the job.

Caroline Flint: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that four years-worth of data show that in 2009, wholesale gas and electricity prices fell by some 46% but that reduction was never passed on to the consumer in the following years?

Edward Davey: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right in that, as the recession took place there was a period when wholesale gas prices plummeted, because the economy was in such a mess that the demand for energy was reduced. However, she ought to be careful about going too far on this issue.
	Whatever the price rises are, there is a problem for consumers. We know that incomes have fallen as we have emerged from Labour’s great recession, and the fact that price rises have been slowing will be of little comfort. I can, therefore, understand why a promise of a blanket, Government-imposed energy price freeze might seem popular, but as I will demonstrate, it is not a price freeze but a con.
	At no point have the Opposition explained how their proposal would actually work, so let us try to get to the bottom of their thinking with a few questions. Are they proposing to freeze all current tariffs in their existing state, in real cash terms? Would people be able to switch back from a higher but longer fixed-rate tariff to a lower, variable-rate tariff before that variable rate became fixed by law? If a cut-price deal was set to end during the freeze, would suppliers be forced to continue it until the freeze ends, penalising firms who try to help their customers?
	We know the problem for smaller competitors if wholesale prices rise. They tell us that they would go bust under Labour’s energy price freeze. But what if wholesale prices fall during the freeze? Is Labour proposing to prevent firms from passing on that price fall? [Interruption.] I am delighted that the right hon. Lady said that, because it is clear that Labour will not prevent bills being cut. Instead, would Labour legislate to force companies to pass on each and every cut in wholesale prices, and how would that work? It is a reasonable question. Would Labour legislate to force price cuts during the freeze, or would companies be able to hold on? If a company has bought its gas 18 months ahead, paying a higher price on the wholesale markets, would Labour still force it to cut or freeze its prices, bankrupting it?
	The Opposition want to intervene in the markets to control prices and second-guess global price changes, so they must have the answers to these questions. Would smaller suppliers be exempt from the price freeze? How would the price freeze be applied to new entrants? Alternatively, is Labour happy to see a return to the big six, with just a smaller number of suppliers?
	This is a gimmick, not a policy. It is a shambles, and it is back to the 1970s. Given that it clearly will not work for consumers, might it work for businesses? Typically, large non-domestic customers have bespoke sophisticated fixed-term contracts which pass through each element of third-party costs. How would the price freeze work for them? What would happen to a contract whose term ended during the freeze? Alternatively, will comrades on the Opposition Benches decree that contracts need to be renegotiated ahead of a freeze? Will the comrades stop at energy price freezes? Are there plans to freeze rail fares or water charges? In the past six years butter and margarine prices have gone up faster than energy prices. What is the plan for butter and margarine prices?
	The right hon. Lady tries very hard to paint her party out of the picture and to blame others for the problems we face, but after 13 years of Labour rule, it was not just a wrecked economy that the coalition inherited four years ago. We inherited an energy infrastructure future with a huge multibillion-pound black hole at its heart, the result of years of underinvestment, dithering and delay, and we inherited a retail energy market which, over 13 years of a Labour Government, had been stripped of proper competition and had become hugely complex and confusing for consumers, with prices rocketing and no avenue of escape from the clutches of the big six.
	In both these areas—in investment in infrastructure and in reforming the markets—this coalition Government have had to clear up the mess that Labour left behind. Look at the investment figures. The Office for National Statistics figures show that from 2005 to 2009, average investment in the electricity sector was around £5 billion a year. That was far too low for the country’s needs. We had to work tirelessly to turn it around, and we have. Since 2010 investment has continued to rise. On average in this Parliament it has risen by almost £8 billion a year. In 2012 investment exceeded £10 billion—the highest figure on record—and we have a pipeline worth £187 billion, including the first nuclear power station in a generation.
	There have been record levels of investment in renewables. Bloomberg estimates that average annual investment in renewables has more than doubled in this Parliament, compared with the previous one. Last year electricity generated by onshore wind rose by 36%. Offshore wind is up 45%. Solar is up by almost 70%. Low-carbon generation now makes up more than 35% of the electricity mix. Emissions are coming down, the share of clean power is going up and investment in new infrastructure is booming. Under this coalition the lights will stay on, and we will go green.
	When it comes to their policy detail, we have learned nothing today about what the Opposition are proposing. It is a slogan, not a policy. This Government are getting on with the complex task of mending the markets to serve the best interests of consumers. We have transformed the retail market, increasing competition, challenging the power of the big six and putting customers more firmly in the driving seat. We have minimised the impact of Government policy on bills while protecting help to the poorest, protecting investment in low carbon and maintaining emissions reductions.

Margot James: Talking of the stimulus to competition under this Government, may I remind my right hon. Friend that, despite reducing the subsidy from 43p to the 13p tariff, this Government have seen the number of
	homes supplied by solar power increase from 15,000 to more than half a million? Is that not testimony to some of the excellent work of this Government?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right. Although we have managed to reduce the subsidies to solar and onshore wind, we are seeing a boom in renewable electricity investment.

Albert Owen: Is the Secretary of State comparing and contrasting the years 2009 and 2010 to 2013, and seriously telling the House of Commons that many of the billion-pound contracts for offshore wind started and finished in the period to which he refers, or will he be honest with us and say that we need continuity of policy by consent, so that we can get the policy structure we all need? Will he stop playing silly games about years and trying to blame the previous Government?

Edward Davey: I am prepared to give credit to all parties, which is something the Opposition rarely do. I am pleased that they voted for our Energy Act 2013 and now support the market investigation reference, but it was the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, in opposition, who had to push time and again to get the Labour Government to act on things such as feed-in tariffs, so we will not take any lectures on that.
	We are acting to bring far greater openness to the retail markets so that the energy suppliers can be held to account for their prices, and we are acting to increase liquidity in the wholesale markets, further boosting competition. All these actions maintain the pressure that bears down on prices. As the competition authorities take forward their work in the proper manner, we will continue to act to ensure that we have a real evidence base on how to continue to mend the markets that Labour ran into the ground. That work will take around 18 months to complete, but as I said at the start, because of Government action, the energy companies are now saying that there should be no further rises in bills over the next year unless circumstances change drastically. Some have gone further, and I welcome that.

Bob Stewart: It seems that the way to bring prices down for consumers is to encourage more independents, which seem to have tripled their customer base over the past two years. Will we get more independents, as they seem to keep their prices down?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right. The independents’ share of the retail market has gone from 1% in 2010 to 5% under this Government. We have seen people switching from the big six to the small independents. Just last month 40% of those switching went to the smaller independent suppliers. Their customer base has been growing, but it is because we are not complacent, unlike the previous Government, that we have asked Ofgem to make their competition assessment, and we are supporting its proposal for a market investigation reference.
	Were the Government to fix prices by law, as the Opposition propose, without any idea of the consequences, we would risk undoing all the progress we have made for consumers and business, risking the investment we need to keep the lights on into the next decade for consumers, undermining the independent suppliers and
	forcing consumers back into the hands of the big six. Let us continue to expose Labour’s energy gimmick to the oxygen of debate between now and the next election.
	The Sun
	may well re-run the Kinnock front page from 1992.

John Robertson: I find the Secretary of State’s rather patronising attitude towards my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) somewhat distasteful. [Interruption.] I know he is not listening, but it will be in Hansard. He can read about it later. If he wants to conduct his politics in that manner, may I suggest he goes out in the street to do so? Or he should try to conduct himself in a manner befitting of the House.
	Let me explain something to the Secretary of State. He obviously does not understand what the word “freeze” means. It means that something is stopped. It is solid and it stays where it is. He seems to have missed that. I noticed that he said he had challenged the big six. I would be interested to know when and what he did to make them do anything, other than be very nice to them and help them to increase their prices, as they have done. The Energy and Climate Change Committee has done more to attack the big six and make them toe the line than his Government have done.

Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point in asking what the Secretary of State has done to challenge the big six. The big six actually bought off the Secretary of State by proposing a £50 reduction on people’s bills, amounting to 97p a week. They were laughing at him.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that; he is of course right.
	Let us face it: we are where we are. It does not really matter what the Con-Dem Government have done in the past four years, or what the last Labour Government did in the previous 13 years. The problem is what is happening now. Fuel poverty is a bigger problem today than it ever was. We could say that that is a result of bad government and that it is this Government’s fault because they have been in power for four years and they should have done something. Well, they did do something. The Secretary of State talked about getting reports and asking for suggestions, and he has done that. His predecessor also did it, resulting in the Hills report.
	The Hills report stated that nearly 2.4 million people were still in fuel poverty, and the gap between their bills and what they could afford was getting wider. It also found that about 3,000 people could be expected to die over the course of a winter as a result of Government policy. That was not necessarily all to do with energy, however; it referred to Government policy overall, and it applied to all Governments. This was a good report, and it was commissioned by a Liberal Secretary of State. But what have the Government done since then? How many lives have been saved since the Hills report? What action have they taken to tackle fuel poverty?
	The answer, Secretary of State, is that you have done absolutely nothing. Sadly, more people are dying now than when the Hills report first came out. An energy
	freeze might not be the answer to everything, but if you are happy with the way Ofgem is running things, with the way the energy market is conducting itself and with the present state of affairs, then do as you are doing now: do absolutely nothing—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I very gently exhort the hon. Gentleman not to use the word “you”? I know that he is doing it for the purpose of emphasis, but it is undesirable if it is widely mimicked. He is felicitous of phrase—he can express himself in a different way.

John Robertson: I apologise, Mr Speaker. Thank you for pointing out to anyone who might have thought I was talking to you that I was actually talking to the Secretary of State.
	It is up to the Secretary of State to look at this problem. He has called the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley a “con”, but I do not think it is a con if we try to do something. I believe that we need to fix the industry, because the big six are not doing the job that they should be doing. It is they who are conning people. It is a bit rich for the Secretary of State to say that we are conning the public, when it is the energy companies that are doing the conning. They are the ones putting up the bills, and the public have to respond by paying them their money.
	So let us have a freeze. Let us look at the energy companies and see what they are doing, and if we have to fix the situation—as I believe we will—let us try to do it in a window lasting between 18 months and two years. If we can fix it in that time, and if the energy companies end up out of pocket, it will be up to the Government to fulfil the need that has been lost, rather than the general public, because the freeze will have been imposed by the Government of the day, which I hope will be a Labour Government. The most important thing is to look after the people in this country who are living in fuel poverty. In Scotland, 1 million people classify themselves as fuel poor. When we add that to the figure for England, it takes us well above the 2.4 million figure that we had years ago. We need to do something about that.
	The energy companies have shown their true face recently. The chief executive officer of British Gas—a company that had a monopoly on gas supply for years—has said if a price freeze were imposed, there would be blackouts. If the Secretary of State believes that that is right, it will be up to him to sort out the problem, because it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the lights do not go out. The CEO might try to blame people for proposing a freeze, but I believe that a freeze would be helpful in sorting out the energy business in the long term.
	The Secretary of State has not expressed the hatred for Ofgem that some of those on my Front Bench have done. I believe that it has got worse, rather than better, over the past two years, despite the discussions that the Select Committee and others have had with it. It has never worked quickly. Some might say that that is a good thing, because if it worked quickly, it might make mistakes. They would prefer that it took its time, in order to ensure that it did the right thing. However,
	I believe that it takes so long to act because it is frightened to make certain decisions and because it does not think it will have the backing of the Government.

David Mowat: On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the CEO of Centrica, what Sam Laidlaw actually said was that, if there was a possibility of his business being split into two halves in a couple of years, it would affect his propensity to invest in one of those halves until the matter had been sorted out. That seems quite a reasonable statement to make. He did not say that the lights would go out.

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he is right and I am wrong, I apologise, but that is not what it said in the newspapers. That is not how the CEO was quoted. He was quoted as saying that the lights could go out. To me, that sounded like the big bully threatening people in the playground: “I’m going to put your lights out.” That is basically what he was saying to us. Well, I know how to deal with bullies, and it is not my lights that will be going out. I say to the CEO of British Gas that if he and his company cannot do their job, there are plenty of other companies that would like to take it on. If that is the case, let us sell it off to other people who are willing to do the job. We do not need to listen to bullies telling us how they want to run the country. That is a matter for the Government, after all.
	We have heard a lot about the green levies, which the Government have reduced. Some of us felt that that was not the right thing to do. Having said that, if people’s bills were to be reduced by £50 as a result, that would have been great. But their bills were not reduced by £50; they have gone up by £60. The energy companies are saying to our constituents, “Hey, good news! The Government have just saved you £50”, but a lady in my constituency could not even afford the bills before the £60 increase, so no credit is due to the Government there.
	I ask the Government to look into this matter, and it would be much better to do this in a cross-party manner. I believe that this Secretary of State is doing his very best to stop the multi-party arrangements in energy, but in the past we have always got on well together. We ought to work together as a team to try to get the country back together again and to put an end to this point scoring.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the importance of working together across the parties. Does he agree that, if the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills did not have the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) standing guard over them to ensure that they keep to the Conservative line, we would get a much more rational response from this Liberal Democrat Secretary of State?

John Robertson: When more than one Department is involved in this place we always have a problems—it does not seem to matter what is done. If we involve a Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and a Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, they are going to have their own drivers, which are not
	always the same. A Minister put in place to cover both Departments has a hard job, because it cannot be easy dealing with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, let alone the other one. So good luck to the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks—we will see where he goes. We certainly need to look at how energy is governed, and it should not be done across Departments. One Department should be dealing with it, although it could be done by a bigger Department.
	I have no objection to companies making profits, but profits have gone up by £3.3 billion since 2010. The Secretary of State talked about what happened in 2009, 2006 and 2007, but he never said anything about what happened after that. The fact of the matter is that an increase of £3.3 billion since 2010 is a touch excessive. Public affairs consultants in the big six say they make only 2% profit while bragging to their shareholders that profits have gone up 20 times as much. That deals with what the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) was saying about the splitting of wholesale and retail. Everybody knows that I have spoken about that for a number of years. I believe that they should be split, because all we ever get from energy companies is that they have an increase in profits—it could be 4%, 5% or 6%—but that it is not enough to help them invest.

Michael Weir: Is the hon. Gentleman’s position that the companies should be split into separate companies or two separate divisions? I cite, as I have done before, the position of E.ON, which apparently has two separate divisions but has complicated loan arrangements within them that reduces the profits. We must have transparency if this is to happen.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right about that. I am not a business man. I was an engineer, so I only like to fix things—I do not particularly like to break them, although in the case of the Government that is perhaps something else I would like to do. What he describes is a problem. When we split these companies up, do we say, “You can have either wholesale or retail, but you cannot have both”? Or do we say to a large company, “You have to split, as happened with BT, where it was split into wholesale and Openreach”? Do we say, “You have a choice, you can be one or the other but you cannot cross-fertilise and give people loans”? I do not know whether that is a good idea, but we have a regulator and a Government to deal with these things. Cleverer people than me will be able to work out what the best fit for the nation will be. But what I do believe is that the people I represent are the ones nobody consults but they are the same people we want the money from at the end of the day.

Tim Yeo: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), a valued member of my Select Committee who consistently shows a great and real passion for helping those who suffer from fuel poverty—I guess more of his constituents than mine are in that position, but it is also an issue in parts of South Suffolk.
	Many colleagues are anxious to speak, so I wish to make just a few brief points about the price freeze and the Competition and Markets Authority reference. However, I want to begin with a plea for honesty in the debate about energy prices. No politician, whatever party they belong to, can control energy costs, because the biggest component in an energy bill, be it for gas or electricity, is the international wholesale price of gas, which is completely outside the control of this Government, past Governments and future Governments. It is simply dishonest—it is not playing fair with the public—to pretend that a new Government could wave a magic wand and stop prices from going up. If global demand for gas rises sharply, as the International Energy Agency points out is likely to happen because of the expansion of the Asian economies, the international price will go up and the tankers that leave Qatar full of liquefied natural gas, some of which we want to have here, will be more expensive than they are today. So please let us try at least to start the debate in an honest way, without making promises about energy bills that cannot possibly be honoured in the long term.

Fiona O'Donnell: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me and my constituents why SSE is able to announce a price freeze, then?

Tim Yeo: I am coming on to deal with that specific point; if the hon. Lady waits for a moment, I will explain it. First, let me urge everyone to try for a bipartisan debate, as a good starting point, in the interests of helping the public to understand the issues better.
	There is general agreement across all the parties that there are three principal aims of energy policy. The first is security of supply, which is fundamental. I do not think the public would tolerate the kind of cuts that occurred in the 1970s. Modern life, both domestically and in business, depends now on a continuous supply of electricity. The second aim is affordability, which is much in everyone’s minds right now. The third is reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which the latest Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change report underlines should have equal priority to the other two.
	Any proposed energy policy should be measured against those three aims, and I am sorry to say that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has eloquently pointed out, the proposed price freeze does not score terribly well on those three tests. On security, a price freeze will actively harm Britain’s interests. It will inevitably deter and discourage new investment in capacity, particularly in electricity generation capacity, just at the time when, as is universally accepted, Britain needs huge new investment—£110 billion is a commonly agreed figure for the level of new investment needed in the next few years. Of course, as we all know, we face a situation over the next two or three years where margins of spare capacity will be at historically low levels. A very severe winter in this country and in north-western Europe could mean that we face a risk—not a huge risk—of a black-out.
	The danger that the price freeze will discourage new investment has already been shown by some of the reactions. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) referred to Centrica. It is all very well for Sam Laidlaw to say that, in the event of vertical integration coming to an end, Centrica would stop
	investment, but the truth is that in the UK it has already stopped investing.
	[Laughter.]
	It pulled out of a nuclear consortium last year. The company is investing heavily in other countries—in markets where it can see better returns than at home. This should not be a cause for laughter by the Opposition; it is very serious, because one of our biggest energy companies is deciding that Britain is no longer a market in which it wishes to participate.

David Mowat: My hon. Friend’s observation is pertinent. Was he as concerned as I was when SSE announced its freeze two weeks ago and simultaneously pulled out of three of the four offshore wind farms in which it was involved?

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend is right in what he says. I was going to deal with that point in response to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), but I will bring it forward. One of the other damaging effects of a proposed price freeze is shown exactly by SSE’s actions in its voluntary price freeze—it introduced that having raised its prices to a level it thought would be acceptable for the next two years. It actually brought forward a price increase, at the expense of consumers, in order to be able to announce this headline-grabbing freeze, and at the same time, as my hon. Friend mentioned, it announced that it was pulling out of three very substantial low-carbon investments. The freeze that SSE announced had two directly damaging effects.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting observation. He is saying that a Government price freeze may deter investment in the future, but he slightly contradicts himself by saying that it is already being deterred—I agree with him on that. Tellingly, the chief executive officer of Centrica said he believed that a long review of energy markets would also cause disinvestment by companies. Is the hon. Gentleman concerned about that? Does he think the reference and the whole process could be speeded up so that investment is not put on hold?

Tim Yeo: The hon. Gentleman, another valued member of my Select Committee, raises a point that I was just going to come to. The consequences of the delay that will be imposed are themselves damaging in some respects.
	The second aim of energy policy, which is affordability, is also harmed. As I have pointed out, if companies believe that prices will be frozen in May 2015, they will inevitably seek opportunities to raise their prices in the intervening period. Announcing a price freeze 20 months in advance has the perverse consequence of raising prices for consumers during that 20-month stretch faster than they would otherwise have risen.
	The Leader of the Opposition, who certainly grabbed the headlines in his party conference speech last September, did not, I am afraid, do a great deal more than that. It is not a serious policy to announce a price freeze 20 months in advance. If this were an Opposition who were genuinely concerned about keeping consumer prices down, they would not announce the freeze until the day after they took office. There is an honourable and admirable precedent for that sort of approach, which was taken by
	the last Labour Prime Minister. When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1997, he took the world by surprise a weekend after the election by announcing the formation of the Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England and transferring the power to control interest rates away from Ministers and the Treasury to an independent committee. An Opposition who were really concerned about consumer prices would have said, “We have this brilliant idea, but it can only work if we don’t say anything about it until we are in a position to implement it.”

Alan Whitehead: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there should be a price freeze, but that we should not tell anyone about it until we introduce it? Or is he saying that we should let some people know, but not others, so that it will work, or that there should not be a price freeze?

Tim Yeo: I am saying that I am not in favour of a price freeze, but a price freeze that is signalled 18 months in advance is clearly a cynical electoral manoeuvre and has nothing to do with a responsible approach to trying to reduce consumer prices. I am not in favour of the freeze, but I am even less in favour of playing politics with energy bills in the way, I fear, that the Leader of the Opposition did by saying, “Okay, let’s have this price freeze, but obviously we can’t implement it until the middle of 2015.”
	On the third test of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, a price freeze is at best neutral. I am afraid that I have to conclude that the Opposition’s proposal for a price freeze has the damaging effects of cutting investment, increasing the risk of the lights going out, and raising prices and consumer bills faster than otherwise would happen, at the same time as doing nothing to reduce emissions.
	One final consequence of the proposal, which has been pointed out so I will not labour it, is the effect it has on small independent suppliers. Clearly, it is very damaging for them. If ever there was a policy designed to prop up the dominance of the big six it is the price freeze proposed by the Opposition. The ability of those smaller companies to survive the losses that a price freeze could impose on them is inevitably much less than large international companies.
	Let me turn now to the Competition and Markets Authority reference. I believe that that was a belated recognition by Ofgem of the market failure in the energy industry, which is evident in a number of aspects, and of the risks that are, at the very least, inherent in vertical integration. Ofgem has been asleep on the job for the past two or three years. It has not used the powers that it already has as effectively as it should. Indeed, it commissioned BDO the accountants to make a number of recommendations, which it then proceeded to ignore once they had been announced.

Fiona O'Donnell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. Given that he feels that Ofgem has not been doing its job properly for some time, does he regret the fact that when his Committee asked the Secretary of State’s predecessor to hold an inquiry into the market in November 2011, the Government did not take action then?

Tim Yeo: No, I do not regret that at all. My concern about Ofgem is that it has very considerable powers that it is failing to use. If it were more effective in carrying out its functions, some of the present crisis would at least have been mitigated. The downside of the reference is that it may provide companies with a further reason to delay investment decisions for the period of the reference, which, in practice, is likely to last the better part of two years from now. If, as I strongly suspect, the CMA reference produces the conclusion that vertical integration must be addressed, that process itself will then take more time to implement, which will prolong the period of uncertainty and lower investment even further. There is now a case for ending vertical integration. Such is the loss of trust in the big six companies that only by separating generation from retail supply can that trust start to be rebuilt. I acknowledge that there will be some damaging consequences of vertical integration, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) has already touched on in an earlier intervention. In practice, we must grind through the CMA process.
	My final point is that I very much regret that Ofgem, quite characteristically, has missed an important part of the target, which is the transmission and distribution industries. Those industries are, in the case of transmission, a monopoly, and in the case of distribution, a quasi-monopoly. In the past, they have escaped scrutiny by Ofgem to an extraordinary extent. As the public do not pay bills directly to either National Grid or its regional distribution company, very few consumers have ever heard of them. The truth is that transmission and distribution costs account for one fifth of the average bill. That is double the proportion accounted for by the green levies, which have received so much attention in the past few months.
	I am glad to say that my Committee is about to examine transmission and distribution, including the charges that they make. There is little or no competition in the distribution sector. The difficulties of getting connected to the grid and the costs of doing so are a significant obstacle to many desirable, small-scale projects. Only this week, I talked to a large investor in solar power who told me that getting new projects connected to the grid is now a bigger problem than getting them through the planning system. Effective scrutiny of transmission and distribution and the introduction of real competition to the distribution sector would do far more to cut energy bills than any artificial externally imposed price freeze.
	Instead of freezing prices, let us work for more competition. The CMA reference is not an ideal outcome because of the length of time it will take to complete, and its scope should be widened. Let us at least try to make it work and serve the aims of energy policy instead of obstructing them, as a Government-imposed price freeze would do.

Eleanor Laing: Order. The House will be aware that there are more Members who wish to speak than there is time allowed in this debate if everyone takes a long time. I am therefore obliged to impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of six minutes.

Alan Whitehead: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. He makes a number of points in his contribution, not all of which support what the Secretary of State was saying this afternoon.
	This debate is about ensuring that competition works better across the board—for those who generate and supply power, for those who retail power and for what happens in between. I found curious it that the Secretary of State had the air of a querulous member of the Opposition trying to pick holes in Government policy, using some fairly obscure devices yet apparently forgetting he is the Government.
	The Government are presiding over a situation, of which we are all aware, in which competition does not work well at all. We all understand that that is related to the vertical integration of companies that have dealings across the board—in both generation and retail—and extent to the fact that opportunities to put that right over time have conspicuously been missed. The debate this afternoon over what we do about an energy price freeze and how that brings in other arrangements, which secure much better competition and a much better functioning market, does not solve the problem of world energy prices but goes an enormously long way to ensuring that those arrangements can deliver the best possible outcome, particularly for customers, in the context of varying world prices. The question of whether a price freeze creates a problem for investment seems to be rather misplaced, inasmuch as one argument for a better framework for investment in the future is that if the market works better in the first place people will invest in supply and the workings of the market.
	It is not just Centrica that has stopped investing in gas power plants. No one is investing in gas power plants in the UK at the moment; 14 planning permissions are available but only one has been taken up, by an Irish energy company that has a long-term view of how the market will work rather than a short-term view of how it is working. Other plants are being mothballed as we speak. It is not that the market is working well at the moment in attracting investment and future arrangements might harm it; the question is how to maintain the long-term arrangement to secure proper investment.
	In some of his rather more obscure defences of the fact that the Government have done only minor things to secure better competition in the market, the Secretary of State mentioned the Ofgem report on wholesale power market liquidity produced a little while ago. The report does not support the Secretary of State’s claims. All it says on the market making obligation is that if the market has
	“robust price information…available…along the curve, the market will be functioning sufficiently well to support competition.”
	It does not say that along the curve most of the trading is between energy companies, not on the market, and that reforming the day-ahead market does not make any difference. Claims that a pool is only about the day-ahead market are also rather misplaced, in that a functioning pool also deals with issues along the curve. The problem of independent companies having access to the markets is therefore substantially ameliorated by the existence of the pool, because it gives them access to the market that they do not have at the moment.
	The Secretary of State says that the Government made some competition changes in the Energy Act 2013: they made only one, which he mentioned and which was a result of an amendment that I tabled, by creating an offtaker of last resort. That was it—that was the one thing in the Energy Act that concerned competition—and now, as a result of going for an auction contract for difference market for established players rather than an administrative market, they have destroyed the effect of that.
	The aim is to get competition working better across the board. Things are better for investment in the long term as a result, and that is the way in which we should consider this issue for the future. I suggest therefore that the motion, which says exactly that, is one that the House should embrace, because that is what the markets need to work better for customers and investors—

Eleanor Laing: Order.

David Mowat: Everybody in this House is concerned about fuel poverty on behalf of our constituents. It is a big issue and it matters. We are also concerned about the 900,000 people in our country who work in energy-intensive industries, many of them in the north-west and the north-east. We need to get our bills lower.
	There is a second issue that we should talk about, which was touched on by the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo). Uniquely in our country we have to replace 25% of our generating capacity by the end of this decade and I contend that the way in which we address the first question will influence how effective we are in addressing the second. If we do not address the second properly, there will be blackouts—they might not happen in this decade, but they will happen.
	I, like everybody, welcome the referral. Let me make a couple of points for completeness. The DECC website today gives an analysis of gas prices across Europe in table 5.9.1. The UK is the fourth cheapest out of the 15 that use the gas balancing hub in Europe. If that is a manifestation of a cartel in action, it is not a very good cartel. To be clear, that excludes taxes rather than including them. We are the fourth cheapest out of the 15 according to the DECC website and the EU energy portal, so that suggests a pretty mediocre cartel.
	We have heard a lot about the concentration of the industry in this country, with the big six representing 95% or 96% of it. Arguably that is concentrated, but it is much less concentrated than any other gas or electricity market in Europe with the possible exception of that in Austria. I will just say, as the competition authorities are considering the matter, that Germany has two gas and three electricity companies and France and Italy have similar numbers.
	We are going ahead with the process and that is right, as anything we can do to bring prices down is right. Parties on both sides of the House have a three-part plan to achieve that. The Government believe in competition working as well as it can, and there are examples of it
	not working brilliantly. We need to make switching easier and tariffs simpler. The industry has been slow on that and perhaps Ofgem has, too. We need to go further.
	The second part of the Government’s plan is that we must be careful about how we apply green charges and green levies to bills. We need to be circumspect. Occasionally, that means doing what we did recently with the renewables obligation certificates and what we did two or three years ago with solar power levies. We will come back to that point.
	The third element of what we are trying to achieve concerns the need for more new entrants. Everybody knows that new entrants give competition. We have heard that about nine or so are coming in now and we need to encourage them.
	How does that plan contrast with the Opposition’s policies? As we have heard, the centrepiece is the price freeze. I thought that the Chairman of the Select Committee made a good point about how the freeze will impact on the various components of decarbonisation and security. I also thought that the Secretary of State made some good points about how the freeze would work in action as regards tariff levels as well as to which tariffs it would apply and for how long.
	Secondly, the Opposition do something every time we vote on how quickly to apply green levies and on what is appropriate. For example, two or three years ago we reduced the tariffs on solar from about six times grid parity to three or four times grid parity—subsequent to that reduction the solar industry has continued to expand at a huge rate—and Labour voted against that. Even three months ago, Labour voted for a Lords amendment to the Energy Bill to accelerate the rate at which coal power stations would be switched off. Today is an epiphanic day for that policy; some Labour Members might want to reflect on that. Those are extraordinary actions of unilateral damage to what we are doing in this country, a country that has lower carbon emissions than the EU average. To act in that way while talking about fuel poverty in the way the Opposition do is not consistent.
	The final point about the Opposition’s energy policy concerns their tendency, which, in fairness, we have not heard today, to refer to the directors of the big six using phrases such as “operating a cartel”, “price fixing” and “dodgy deals”. Those are criminal activities and if evidence of such things exists it should be laid before the competition authorities and people should go to prison. In fairness, we did not hear that today from the shadow Secretary of State or Labour Back Benchers, but we have in the past. If the Labour party wishes to be the custodian of the £110 billion process by which we replace energy in this country over the next decade, its members must ask whether such language is appropriate.
	I think we have a significant problem with the energy gap in this country. Arguably, we have a significant problem under the Government’s policies and the price freeze will make it worse. In the last two years we have closed or mothballed Oldbury, Wylfa I, Kingsnorth, Grain, Cockenzie, Didcot, Fawley, Teesside and Keadby, but we have not seen the investment to replace them. We have the SSE announcement and we are building very little. As a consequence there is a predicted 2% energy margin three years from now. That means that we will be mothballing—

Eleanor Laing: Order.

Michael Weir: Things are certainly beginning to move fast in the energy market with this week’s reference to the Competition and Markets Authority and the announcement of Scottish and Southern Energy’s price freeze. The price freeze is welcome, but it is worth noting that it is not quite what it seems as it applies only to the standard tariff charged by the company, and anyone who looks at the website will see that the company still has many different tariffs.
	However, the two events do, I suppose, allow both sides to claim some success. This afternoon the Government have claimed that competition works, while the Labour party points to its idea of a price freeze, and of course the two-year investigation has the added benefit of kicking difficult decisions to the other side of the general election. What it does not do is take action to deal with the huge contradiction that sits at the heart of energy policy. We all agree that we want our constituents to get relief from high energy bills, but we also want the massive investment that is required to meet our future energy needs, and to decarbonise the electricity supply.
	In the very week when the IPCC issued a very alarming new report on the current impact and probable future impact of climate change, these are issues that cannot simply be swept aside as we struggle over how we get relief from higher energy bills for our constituents. The argument about how we got to the position of the big six energy companies will not take us very far. It is undoubtedly true that the privatised companies, at least initially, did not take adequate action to deal with future energy security, but like all newly privatised concerns set about making sure that they were attractive to investors and maintained a high share price. This offers one explanation for why most were quickly swallowed up by multinational energy companies and the big six came into being, with only SSE and Centrica still being independent UK-based companies.
	I have looked at the Labour party document "Powering Britain: One Nation Labour's plans to reset the energy market". It is long on analysis, but I have some queries about how it will work. A price freeze is a headline idea, but so far there have been no real ideas about what will happen thereafter, and whether it would actually do much good. The price freeze would be temporary. It would do nothing to deal with the huge inequalities that currently exist within the energy system; it would simply freeze these in place. For example, those who are on an expensive tariff or on higher tariff pre-payment meters would still continue to pay more than those on direct debit payments. Surely some action should be taken on these issues, which we have debated several times in this place.
	SSE, in its response to Labour's consultation, said:
	“the proposals would not significantly reduce energy prices or provide energy investors with the long- term certainty they require to invest in the energy infrastructure consumers depend upon".
	It further makes a point that I have often asked: what happens at the end of the freeze? The executive summary of the document talks about creating a tough new regulator to replace Ofgem, but what will be the powers
	of that regulator? If it is the intention to keep down prices, will it have the power to impose price caps or profit caps? Or as SSE put it in its more gentle terms
	“Notwithstanding the proposal for a 20-month price freeze, the consultation does not appear to have a clear commitment or a sustainable solution to reduce costs of electricity and gas”.
	The document talks about tackling the vertical integration of the companies. We all seem to assume that the CMA will tackle vertical integration, but hon. Members should look at what it says about that on page 14. It also talks about some of the benefits of vertical integration. Given the history of the Office of Fair Trading investigation into companies and what it says itself, we cannot take it for granted that it will tackle vertical integration. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) I asked exactly what the terms of the ring-fencing will be. That will be important.
	Other items in the document are old favourites, such as simplifying tariffs to encourage switching. But the elephant in the room is how we continue to encourage the much-needed investment in our energy infrastructure. When SSE announced its price freeze, it also announced that there would be 500 job losses and that it was pulling out of several renewable developments, which seems fairly clear evidence that those of us who did question whether a price freeze would come at the cost—

Pete Wishart: My hon. Friend will know that SSE is based in my constituency and there is great concern among the Perth staff about exactly what will happen. With the advantages that we see from the press release there are also consequences. I am sure that my hon. Friend will address those.

Michael Weir: My h F is correct. As I was just saying, the price freeze does come at the cost of much-needed future investment and the jobs that it could create. It does seem to me that the CMA investigation will mean that there will be a slow-down in investment over at least the next two years while companies wait to see what will happen and how they will be affected by its conclusions.

Mark Tami: I would accept the hon. Gentleman's point if we had seen investment anyway, but we have not. For years and years, we have not seen the level of investment that we need. To say that it is the price freeze that is stopping it is ludicrous.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman clearly is not listening. I said it would make the situation worse. I fully appreciate that we need this investment. It is not happening sufficiently now, but it will get worse under this. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps listen a little more closely. Effectively there will be a slow down in investment whatever happens now, and that could be disastrous since it is only by investment in new renewable energy that we can break away from the dependence on carbon-emitting generation and bring down bills permanently in the long run.
	But if we are to have an investigation, it should look at the whole of the energy industry and in particular the very costly subsidies that are being provided for new nuclear. The deal announced for Hinkley C is almost double the current wholesale energy price, and incidentally,
	I understand, very much higher than prices agreed by EDF for similar stations overseas. It will cost the taxpayer an eye-watering sum of money and be guaranteed for at least 35 years. Indeed, the cost of that station alone will be more than four times the total amount paid out in renewable obligations for the first 10 years of its existence. If more stations are built, we can assume that developers will be seeking the same sort of deal, and Hinkley will become the benchmark of how nuclear developers can soak the taxpayer. Perhaps this is an area that could be improved by more ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ as sought in the motion. All this, despite the fact that the similar stations being built in Finland and France are many years behind target and vastly over budget. Surely in any investigation into the market this should have been a major factor, yet there is simply no mention of it in the documents issued with the announcement of the review.
	We believe that if we are to reduce and retain lower energy bills, we need to move to a renewable future and make that investment now. We believe that we need to remove the cost of the energy company obligation and warm home discount from energy bills and put it into general taxation, but maintain the level of spend. It is interesting to note that although the UK Government have removed those to some extent, that is a temporary measure for a couple of years, not a long-term measure. Doing this would be much fairer and allow a much more targeted approach to dealing with these issues. It is undeniably true that there is now so much distrust of the energy companies that even a good deal from them is now looked at with suspicion and rejected out of hand by many consumers.
	The investigation by the CMA may well finally get some agreement on what is happening in the energy market and allow us a way forward. I could agree with most of the Opposition motion, but I do have difficulty with the last part which seems to have come to a conclusion about the investigation before it has taken place. Given that previous investigations by the OFT have decided that the market was working, I am not entirely sure that we can rely on this current one coming to the conclusion that the market is broken, as the motion puts it, although most of us would agree that there are indeed serious problems with it. It will be interesting to see the conclusions that it comes to. Clearly there must be changes in our energy industry, and the sooner the better.

Eleanor Laing: Order. With all due respect to the hon. Member who has just delivered his speech, I should point out to the House that three hon. Members in a row have spoken past the point at which they should have stopped. There are clocks in the Chamber, and when they show zero, it means it is time to stop speaking.

Damian Hinds: This is an extremely serious issue that goes to the heart of the competitiveness of British businesses, large and small, and the costs borne by hard-pressed households, especially the most vulnerable in our society. It therefore deserves proper, sober treatment, not naked populism. The
	Opposition try to frame the debate as one in which the big six’s defenders and apologists are against the public interest. In fact, we must all be on the side of the consumer against whatever stands in the way. The motion pits supporters of a rational, transparent competition policy framework against those who advocate arbitrary intervention that is politically motivated.
	In this country we do not, or should not, mix competition policy and politics. That is a dangerous road that leads inexorably to political preferment for other sectors, with all the inequity and inefficiency that would bring, and indeed the explosion of lobbying we would all look forward to. Our competition policy system mixes rules-based and discretionary approaches, but with a bias correctly towards the rules-based approach. We set up a system and then set experts on the problem to work out what needs to be done. To say that a referral proves that the system is broken, as the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has done, is to fly directly in the face of the principles that underpin the system and give investors confidence. For politicians to decide to impose a price freeze without a transparent investigation would undermine much of the British economy, and the effects would be felt far beyond the energy sector.
	There are big concerns about competition in the sector, and they are legitimate. We know from the annual assessment of competition, which shows the situation in sharp relief, that there is a largely settled geographical pattern, low shares of new entrants, relatively low consumer engagement, in part because of the complexity of the market, and increased profits that appear not to be directly reflected in increases in efficiency. There is the question of entry barriers and the extent to which vertical integration makes that situation worse. It has been suggested that there might be some tacit co-ordination in the market. In this country, running a cartel is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible. However, as Galbraith once said, there are a number of habitable halfway houses in which oligopoly situations can pertain, and it is very important to guard against those.
	The market appears to be somewhat mired, and it certainly lacks public confidence, so it is right that the CMA should investigate, but it would be wrong to accompany that investigation with a Government-imposed price freeze. Why? First, there is of course the theoretical possibility that costs will come down. It is wishful thinking for the Opposition to say that a freeze will stop prices going up but whenever costs come down there will be more players in the market. Of course there will not be. What incentive would they have? Secondly, in the event of cost pressures, a freeze would hurt small firms most, partly because they have the smallest reserves for absorbing cost increases, less ability to forward-buy and higher percentage marketing costs as they try to attract more customers.
	Thirdly, firms inevitably find ways around price freezes. We do not know what they will be, but companies are smart and usually find a way to do it. They can nip in with a price increase before a freeze is imposed, they can cut investment, as has been mentioned a number of times, and—this has not yet been discussed—they can discriminate against less profitable customers. If a ceiling is put on the price, there will still be plenty of customers
	who are profitable at that price, but there will be others who are not, and companies might decide to reject those customers.

Albert Owen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very genuine, but his Government introduced legislation—the Energy Act 2013—to hold back prices and interfere in the price mechanism. If what he describes would happen under a freeze, why would it not happen under the legislation that was introduced to hold prices down?

Damian Hinds: The key thing that underpins British competition policy, and indeed the approach in this market, is encouraging competition without setting prices. It is a system that tends to work, and when it does not we have competition policy authorities to investigate and determine how the system needs to be put right. That is the correct way to do it.
	Of course, there is another side to the story. The margin enjoyed by the big six on domestic energy in 2012 was 4.3%. The big question is whether supernormal profit is being generated elsewhere in those companies, particularly on the generation side. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) mentioned the international comparisons, which I think are worth bearing in mind. It is also worth remembering that high prices have not just happened in this country. Prices did not just start rising after May 2010. According to the Office for National Statistics, in 2002, 2003 and 2004 the average household energy bill was £70 a month, but by 2009 it had risen to £108 a month, a rise of more than 50%. They then went down slightly after 2009-10. The biggest factor in those price increases, including when the Labour party was in government, was wholesale energy prices, including the world oil price and declining domestic gas supplies.
	Does that mean all is well and we should not worry? Of course it does not. We want markets to operate well and competitively, and there are signs that this market might not be doing so. It is perfectly possible to have markets with high levels of concentration that still operate competitively, so long as they are contestable. Confectionery, detergents and grocery retail are all markets with very high C5 ratios, but the market can still work if it is contestable, if products are clearly comparable and if switching between them is easy. It is when those last two points do not pertain, as with banks and the energy sector, that worries arise.
	It is right to try to bring in more competitors, and I think that what the Government have done in that regard has been encouraging. I encourage them to do more. We also need more trusted brand names to enter the market, rather than just companies that nobody has heard of. We need to learn from companies such as Sainsbury’s and Marks & Spencer what they believe has held them back. We can go further on tariff simplification, as we are only part of the way through that process. The complexity had become comic. It will now be under much greater control, but we could go further. We need to ensure that annual energy statements are clear, consistent and prominent and that they are machine readable so that comparison sites can read them.
	Overall, we know that there are problems with the market. Given the low levels of public confidence, it is right that the CMA will have a full-blown investigation.
	That is the way we do things in this country to get to the bottom of it. It would be quite wrong to second-guess the outcome of that with a populist price freeze.

Paul Flynn: The elephant in the room in this debate is the future of shale gas. The Secretary of State told me that it would make no difference. However, the likelihood is that we will repeat the experience of America when it starts exporting vast quantities of shale gas. We will not see a price freeze; we will see a price collapse. America has been jerked out of its economic crisis by abundant cheap energy becoming available for industry, which has brought prices down and made it far more competitive. That will happen here. There is no purpose in closing our minds and pretending that it will not, because it will affect the whole market.
	The Chair of the Select Committee talked about the reluctance of British investors to invest in Hinkley Point, but what is British about Hinkley Point? Did Members read the French newspapers when the deal was announced? They regarded it as the deal of the century. It will create 10,000 jobs—not at Hinckley Point, but in France. It is an extraordinary deal. For Britain, it is the rip-off of the century. We have agreed to buy energy—this is hard to believe—at £92 per megawatt-hour, which is twice the going rate at present, and that is the minimum rate. We have indexed linked that price and guaranteed it for 35 years. We do not know what energy prices will be in 35 months.
	The chief executive of Ineos, a man who is a great importer of energy and will be importing shale gas into Grangemouth, said that British companies would not go anywhere near that price. At present he is buying energy from the same company, EDF in France, at £37 per megawatt-hour. That is the going rate. For reasons that are beyond us—inertia, or because they are tied to a nuclear future—we have gone into this terrible deal. People will look back, possibly when you and I are still in the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, at this terrible deal that has been struck. It is irrational.
	We are buying a European pressurised water reactor. They have been around for a little while, but they have not yet produced enough electricity to power a bicycle lamp. The first one was in Finland. According to the deal, it was going to start generating electricity in 2009. The original cost was €3 billion—it is now reckoned to be €8.5 billion—and it is not expected to be generating until 2019, 10 years late. The other one is Flamanville. It had a very similar original cost and is now also expected to cost nearly three times that—€8.5 billion. It is not expected to be completed for four years after the year when it was supposed to be generating electricity, which was last year. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) used to start his speeches by announcing that no nuclear power station in the world has ever been built on time or on budget. Of course, the Liberal Democrats are now singing from a different hymn sheet because they have a Lib Dem Secretary of State.
	We are waltzing into a future that is not well informed by science but based on forecasts. In 2007, the Labour Government’s policy was that nuclear power was an economically unattractive proposition. David King went
	along to Downing street, showed his slide show, and said that there would be a gap in energy in a few years’ time. The Labour Government changed their policy. Then we heard that the lives of the AGRs—advanced gas-cooled reactors—were to be extended, and the fuel gap did not occur.
	I suggest to the Government that we do not build on a system that has always proved expensive and has never delivered on its promised targets, but go into the areas of marine power whereby we can have an abundance of electricity from the great cliffs of water that flow around our shores 24 hours a day. An example of that is La Rance in France. It has been there for nearly 50 years, it paid for all its capital costs decades ago, and it is producing the cheapest electricity in the world. Around our coast, particularly in the Severn estuary but also in other places, there is huge potential for using this great, wasted resource that is natural, immensely powerful, freely available to us, and benign to the environment. Sadly, however, we go on thinking along tram lines. I believe we will find that the EU decides that the £17.5 billion subsidy we intend to pay for Hinkley Point—for one power station—is against European rules because such subsidies are not allowed. My nightmare is that if we have a true—

David Mowat: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the energy market reforms the contract for difference price for tidal power is four times that paid for nuclear?

Paul Flynn: I am aware of the high costs that are put in for all renewables, but at least renewables provide a power source for the future that is free, and has other benefits. The site at Hinkley Point is based on an estuary where there was a tsunami a while ago.

Tessa Munt: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that the intention is that the price of tidal power will be far lower than nuclear after we have perhaps five or six tidal lagoons in place.

Paul Flynn: As I say, rather than looking into the crystal ball, we can look back at what has happened at La Rance, which produces the cheapest power in the world. It was opened in 1966 but the turbines are still in pristine condition. The dredging on the River Parrett, which the hon. Lady will know about, often increases flooding, but if we created a system whereby we used that water by allowing whatever is fitted there to generate energy, we would have a great improvement in flood defences, as at La Rance.
	The Government’s mind seems to be closed to the possibilities of marine power. There are other ways of using it; it is not necessary to build a brick wall across an estuary. Movable turbines can be put in or wave power can be used—there is a whole range of possibilities. Yet there is no kind of push towards that. There is no vested interest saying, “This is what our future should be.” Marine power is the great neglected source that we continue to neglect at our peril. It provides energy that is benign, does not threaten the environment, and will be there eternally.

Phillip Lee: In this debate about an energy price freeze we have heard some interesting contributions from colleagues on both sides of the House. I understand that the Opposition’s position, in effect, is to assume that the price freeze is in place and then think about what they are going to do next in the process. I have not heard about the sorts of things they would like to see in future. If the House will allow me, I would rather discuss the future than the present.
	It is often said that the energy market involves a trilemma, but I tend to disagree with that principle because it implies that all the elements are equally important. For me, the cost of energy is key. Of course, security and decarbonisation matter, but ultimately energy is directly linked to GDP growth; we need only to look across the Atlantic to see evidence of that. We must concentrate on cost as our primary target. There is also an argument, which I will make, about the limits of markets. The privatisation of the Central Electricity Generating Board in the 1980s was welcome, and it brought about an increase in efficiency, but I wonder whether we are all missing a trick in not realising that there comes a point when the market can deliver no further gain and we might want to consider a different model, particularly in the supply and distribution of electricity and gas.
	As I say, the primary concern must be the cost of energy. When I stood for election to the DECC Committee in 2010, more than one colleague came up to me somewhat surprised that I was going for such a “lowly” Select Committee and asking why was I not going for something interesting like health or education. I pointed out to each and every one of them that I thought energy was a key challenge for this Government, and indeed Governments to come, alongside ageing. As a doctor, I could talk all day about the ramifications of an ageing population, but I did not know that much about energy and the energy market. We are now approaching the fourth anniversary of our joining these Select Committees, and in those four years I have concluded that the complexities of the energy market in this country are quite remarkable. Although I think it is going too far to call it a cartel, certainly the public’s view is one of a sense of things acting in concert. An investigation into this market is long overdue.
	The motion mentions an increase in competition, but I wonder where that would take us. An analysis of the economic profits of the energy companies shows that they are actually making losses. Centrica made an economic loss of £345 million in 2013. Yet we are expecting these companies to invest and bring private investors into the market. We must reflect on that. Although it makes very easy headlines to say that these companies are making massive profits, in fact they are not. Any profits that they make tend to be in their generation arms, not in their retail arms.

Mel Stride: On the increased competition in the market that we would all like to see, does my hon. Friend agree that the suggestion that Government arbitrarily step into a marketplace and apply a blanket freeze is likely to scare off investors and be a significant brake on the very competition that we want to promote?

Phillip Lee: Of course. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, many people have already made the case for how simplistic and foolish an energy price freeze would be, and I did not want to add to that, because I thought it would be presumed that I would agree. My hon. Friend smiles. We are about to carry out an investigation into the market, and perhaps we need to start to think about how we might restructure our energy sector in a more profound way.
	Before I come to that, I want to mention security. Currently, about 70% of our oil and gas comes from Norway; that relationship is key. Centrica has a long-term contract with the Qataris, worth in excess of £4 billion, which is important. Contrary to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), I am a strong supporter of the nuclear industry, but I have some issues—I have gone on public record about this—because a strategy on the nuclear industry is required.
	I am somewhat concerned that we have had to go abroad for the technology. We have had to do so because the Opposition sold all the technology during the previous Parliament. Westinghouse was sold, as was British Energy—we could have made hay about that, but never mind. I am concerned that we have to go abroad for technology that arguably is not the cheapest and that, as the hon. Member for Newport West said, has not been delivered on time anywhere on the face of the earth. We need a strategy as a country. For example, why not have small reactors across the country, built by Rolls-Royce? That is just a suggestion.

Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Centrica made a considered and serious decision when it abandoned the £200 million it had already invested in Hinkley Point? That meant that the serious investors had deserted, and so we now have to rely on cheap Chinese money, of which is there is an abundance. What has Hinkley Point got to do with Britain?

Therese Coffey: They did not have control of the asset.

Phillip Lee: As my hon. Friend says, Centrica did not have control of the asset, because it was not allowed to buy British Energy in 2008—a decision made by the previous Government, and one which I guess the hon. Gentleman supported.
	It is time for the Government to concentrate on one thing rather than on a myriad. Whenever the Department of Energy and Climate Change comes before the Select Committee it gives evidence of its lack of fitness for purpose in this area. The Select Committee has been, I think, deeply frustrated by the Department’s performances on many occasions. We should concentrate on one thing, which is energy efficiency. Fatih Birol was in front of the Select Committee the other day—he edits the “World Energy Outlook”. The conclusion of that weighty tome is that this country should concentrate on energy efficiency. We should stop subsidising energy generation and let the market deal with that.
	We should concentrate on energy efficiency because the reality is that that is all we can do. Our stocks of gas are declining—they may be mitigated somewhat by shale, but let us not hold our breath or think it will be a significant bounty. This country needs to be able to deliver economic growth in the future with less energy.
	California has done it so I do not see why we cannot. It requires concentration purely on that one issue. We need to get away from the rather daft level of subsidy for offshore wind, for example. There is some argument for state expenditure on energy security in baseload generation, and we perhaps need to be more transparent about how we fund nuclear energy, and indeed—to refer to the contribution of the hon. Member for Newport West—marine energy projects such as that on the Severn.
	My main point is that the solution is not to have yet further energy companies in the market. I believe that the retail and distribution networks should be owned by co-operatives. We only have to look at New York and Pennsylvania to see the benefits, in terms of the lower costs to the consumer and the ability to take a longer-term view about investment in infrastructure so that if there is poor weather, the distribution network does not go down. It might be counterintuitive for a Government Member to talk about co-operatives—that may be politically attractive—but ultimately there are limits to markets and I think we are approaching the limit in the energy sector.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. In order to accommodate the remaining Members who wish to speak before the wind-ups commence, I am reducing the time limit to five minutes, with immediate effect.

Fiona O'Donnell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who I thought made an illuminating speech. It was illuminating because at no point during his speech did I hear him talk about fuel poverty or about people struggling to pay their fuel bills. My constituents will be disappointed by that and I suspect that his will, too.

Phillip Lee: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Fiona O'Donnell: No—I am on a limit of five minutes. I have not made any interventions in time-limited speeches and I am not going to take any, as I have only five minutes.
	It has also been illuminating to see the political tomfoolery of the SNP today. As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) stood to speak, suddenly two other SNP Members came scurrying into the Chamber to give the right impression of SNP support for action on fuel poverty, and then scurried out, having made one intervention.

Phillip Lee: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady has misrepresented my speech. I talked about cost as the primary target of any energy policy, which refers to the fact that I recognise that customers are paying increased bills.

Dawn Primarolo: With respect, that is not a point of order but a matter of debate. However, the hon. Gentleman has now got his point on the record.

Fiona O'Donnell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; as you said, the hon. Member for Bracknell has his point on the record. It certainly did not seem to me—it will not to his constituents, either, I think—that fuel poverty was the main driver of his contribution, but it is the main driver of the motion before the House.
	To return to the SNP, however, I thought that Government Members must have learned to throw their voices, because when the hon. Member for Angus spoke it was like hearing a Tory speak. That is more and more what we are hearing from the SNP these days—there was more time spent bashing Labour’s attempts to do something about fuel poverty than there was spent looking at the inaction of the Government. All he seemed to have to say to the people of Scotland was that the SNP would take less money from the energy companies in the hope that they in turn would take less from the consumer. There was not much hope for the fuel-poor in Scotland from him today.
	We also heard from the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), who I know has taken an interest in Scotland in the past, and has served on the Scottish Affairs Committee. He took an interest in my constituency today, referring to the closure of Cockenzie power station. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) also spoke about the problem of lack of investment. I would like both of those hon. Members—at least one of them is in the Chamber—to know that Cockenzie power station had not been converted to gas because of the Government’s dithering and delay on connection charges, which means that Iberdrola is holding back its investment. That is hurting my constituency and hurting consumers, and responsibility lies firmly with the Government.
	Today’s debate has to be seen in the broader context of a cost of living crisis. I know that the Secretary of State asked questions of the Opposition Front Benchers today, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on giving the House the opportunity to debate this matter today and so allowing me to stand up for my constituents. I hope that when the debate is wound up will we get a response as to whether Ofgem will be required to look at the situation of many of my constituents, who are trapped in fuel poverty because they do not have access to the gas grid, and so do not benefit from dual-fuel discounts and have only a limited number of places from which to buy their supply. There is also the issue of prepayment meters, which hits some of the most vulnerable energy consumers, particularly those on fixed incomes.
	One sign that this Government’s policies are not working is the rise in the number of people using food banks. We are also seeing people having to return food to food banks because they cannot afford to pay for the energy to heat food that requires cooking. I have been away for a couple of weeks with the International Development Committee, and coming back this week I have had a sharp reminder of how the Government are in absolute denial on so many levels. There was denial from the Prime Minister today about the fiasco of the sell-off of Royal Mail. We heard denial yesterday from the Treasury Front Benchers, who would not acknowledge that people will be worse off at the end of this Government. Today we have heard denial from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who on his own website is seen supporting the “Mind the Gap” campaign. How ironic—the gap is between the Government’s rhetoric on fuel poverty and their action on it.
	We need leadership, not people sitting around tables and talking, or taking too long to put Bills through Parliament or to act on Ofgem. The energy consumers in my constituency want action and leadership from the Government now. They will get that from Labour in 2015. I commend the motion to the House.

Robert Syms: I was going to give a comprehensive solution to the energy problems but, given that the time limit has gone down from six to five minutes, I hope the House will forgive me if I do not say anything about how we can sort out those problems.
	This is, of course, an important debate, because the issue impacts on so many people: energy bills are among the largest things they have to pay. I would point out, however, that since the industry was privatised, energy bills have generally been lower than in most other countries in Europe. However, privatisation did not work well in that it inherited quite a lot of capacity to generate and we did not get the sort of investment we should have. That should have been addressed by former Governments.
	If I have a worry, it is more about supply than price. The reason fuel poverty is mentioned is that people cannot afford to have their heating on, but if it is not possible to generate heat such that people will not be able to have it on anyway, that will have the same impact on many of the most vulnerable people, such as the elderly, because they will not be able to heat their homes. We really have to sort out the question of supply.
	I am a little frustrated because the Budget mentioned reducing tax to incentivise companies to invest and increase productivity, but now we are having a debate about energy policy and what seems to be a stalled investment programme. In his sensible speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) mentioned some of the plants we are closing but, although there are planning permissions on the books, people are not investing. That means that we have a real problem, because capacity is reducing and, as we all know, there is likely to be 4% surplus capacity in 2015. That is very close to having black-outs. Some say that high-energy producers could send their workers home and we could turn off the energy to those plants, but the reality is that if we want the British economy to grow and if we want jobs and exports, it would be bonkers not to invest in energy supply, because otherwise we will not be able to generate the energy we need to generate the economic wealth we want as a nation.
	We need to provide more incentives for people to invest. There seem to be a lot of things preventing them from investing. Perhaps there is a strong argument for referring the issue to Ofgem to conduct a big review of the market, but it will slow down investment. I am worried about that, because there is going to be a gap for the next three or four years, and that means that there is a very real risk that the lights will go out. If Members think that the politics of high prices are difficult, they should be aware that the politics of cuts in energy are severe for any Government who do not keep the lights on. That is my main concern. I want Government Front Benchers to keep an eye on the issue and push investment. We need it, because even if nuclear
	power, which I welcome, follows on from the European Commission review, it will be some years before that 7% of valuable additional generating capacity will become available.
	Of course, we are trying to stretch the life of existing Magnox nuclear stations and the last debate we had on energy was about trying to keep some of the coal-fired stations open. I think it is silly to allow stations to close when there is no guarantee that we can generate the electricity through new investment. That is my principal message.
	There are other subsidiary issues. Transmitting power is very important. All the transmission engineers say that we are painfully short of people to provide transmission cables, and we will need many such cables if we invest in new nuclear power. There is a lot more to be done. I am sorry I have made only a brief contribution, but I emphasise that the supply of energy is very important and could very quickly, if we get this wrong, rise to the top of the political agenda.

Albert Owen: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who spoke a lot of sense. He was absolutely right to say—I will not go over everything he said—that when the energy markets were privatised, the splitting up of energy policy was not done in a healthy way. It was done rashly, and many issues such as nuclear waste liability could not be sold off, so the state ended up holding on to them.
	The motion is about not just an energy freeze, but a reset of a market that has failed. Each and every contributor has said that there have been failures in the market, so it is right that the Government should look at the issue and take strong action. They are already intervening: the Energy Act 2013 was the Prime Minister’s way of saying that he wanted to fix prices. That is exactly what Members voted for, so intervention is happening, but it is not helping consumers in the way it should.
	I am certain that every Member wants more transparent and fair energy prices, efficient regulations and the right conditions for investment. The energy market is not working well and we need to improve it. I am the first to admit that, in 13 years, the previous Government should have done more about it.
	I listened with interest to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who provided a good theory of how markets should work, but the practice is very different. He talked about energy prices in 2003-04, but they must be placed alongside today’s context, in which people’s wages are frozen and many household incomes are going down, not up, because of food and energy prices.
	There are price hikes. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), who is no longer in his place, made an intervention earlier on behalf of the Whips and said that his constituents were paying £50 less on his energy bills. If that is the case, Chester is the only place in the United Kingdom with such a reduction. My constituents, who have shown me how their energy bills this year compare with last year, are paying between £70 and £90 more. That is the reality and that is why we should be standing up for consumers in the House of Commons.
	I have issues with the argument that Government intervention would affect potential, much-needed investment. Contrary to what the Secretary of State said, there has not been much new investment; nor have there been many final investment decisions, in the past few years. Many previous decisions have continued after receiving consent and they are coming on stream now, or will be in the near future. Investment has been put off by uncertainty, but that uncertainty has not been caused by the Leader of the Opposition pledging an energy freeze. It happened long before that. Those companies complaining that an energy freeze will hit them have been pulling investment and decisions out of the United Kingdom. Centrica is a particularly bad example.
	The Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) was right to say that we need to be honest, and we need to be honest that this did not start with a pledge for an energy freeze. Rising prices have become such an issue for our constituents. They are hurting so many households that we need to do something. That is why the Leader of the Opposition made his pledge and that is why the Opposition are suggesting policies. We are talking not just about a freeze, but about fixing the regulator, which has some powers it does not use and needs more powers to intervene.
	The Government say that they are instructing Ofgem to do things, but that is just a reaction to what is happening. When the Select Committee conducted inquiries, the Government said that everything was hunky-dory and that switching would resolve the problems. That is wrong, which is why a responsible Government are needed to stand up for consumers and create credibility and certainty for energy companies to invest. The market is not perfect and it needs to change. We need stronger regulations.
	Finally, transmission and distribution make up a quarter of our bills. There is no competition in those areas. We need some competition or, indeed, a not-for-profit organisation to enable bills to come down so that our consumers can have a fair deal in the future. If this Government will not do it, we can at least send a message today by voting for this motion, and a future Labour Government will do it.

Christopher Pincher: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is a fellow member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. One of the disadvantages of speaking at the fag end of any debate is that everything that can be said has been said, but, of course, not everybody who can say it has said it, and I am no exception to that rule. Although I will try not to repeat other contributions overmuch, some points will be worth repeating.
	During the last debate on energy in November, I said that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the shadow Secretary of State, made a characteristically ebullient speech. She conducted herself today with no less chutzpah, but I have to say to her that I think her arguments would have greater resonance across the House and the country if she were prepared to recognise that the failures of the past have contributed
	in no small measure to the challenges we face now. She talked about the need to increase competition in the energy market, but she refused to acknowledge—indeed, she danced around the fact—that the energy market was consolidated under Labour, going from 14 major energy providers down to just six. She talked about the need for greater energy security, so why have we not invested in more nuclear stations or in home-grown shale gas so that we do not rely so much on international hydrocarbon prices and imported gas, which is increasing energy prices for so many of our customers? It is therefore no small surprise that we are greeting her current argument for an energy price freeze with a degree of scepticism.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I notice that she is chuntering away from the safety of the Opposition Front Bench. That is probably the best place for her, because she can do less damage to our economy and to her country sitting there than on the Government Front Bench.

Neil Carmichael: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Christopher Pincher: I will not give way because I know that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) wants to speak.
	If we have a price freeze, these will be the facts. It would encourage providers to hike their prices in anticipation of a blanket freeze, which means that our constituents would pay artificially high prices. It would drive smaller players out of the marketplace and consolidate it even further. That has been said by Dieter Helm, First Utility—the Leader of the Opposition’s provider of choice—Adam Scorer of Consumer Futures and Steve Fitzpatrick of Ovo. It would also drive investment out of the energy sector, as many hon. Members have said during the debate. The chief executive of E.ON said at a meeting of the Select Committee that the cost of capital goes up every time the Leader of the Opposition opens his mouth and talks about a price freeze.
	We all accept that about £110 billion has to be spent on our energy infrastructure—including our pipes and pylons—over the next 10 years to keep the lights on and the kettles boiling. Such investment has largely come from the big six over the past five years. E.ON has invested £7 billion, and Centrica has invested £6 billion. If that spend is extrapolated across the big six over 10 years, they will invest about £70 billion. If we are to find the £40 billion extra, we will have to rely on investment by small independent players, as well as bigger companies. Otherwise we will have to fall back on the poor benighted taxpayer to add cash to consumer’s bills or—heaven forfend—to borrow more money, which the shadow Chancellor seems to like to do, in order to pay for the infrastructure.
	We need to get in the investment, and a price freeze will only discourage investment, but we really need to reduce bills. That is what our customers want. Encouraging 24-hour switching may cut bills by £140; reducing the number of tariffs from 340 to just four can cut bills by £200; and rolling back the green levies can cut bills by £50. That will help our hard-pressed constituents—the hard-pressed consumers—not the gimmick proposed by Labour.

Barry Sheerman: It is always very fortunate to be called last before the closing speeches, because it concentrates one’s mind wonderfully. I am not an energy specialist, but I am very interested in how we make policy in our country. Having listened to this debate, I know that it is about the supply, price and security of energy. I remember hearing a wonderful group from the Royal Society of Arts, Tomorrow’s Company, talk about the best kinds of companies being those that really set examples in looking after the balance between their employees, shareholders, consumers and suppliers, as well as after the community in which they sit. Today’s debate has been about companies falling short, particularly in terms of consumers and the communities in which they sit.
	As politicians, we have been pretty cowardly on energy for a long time. The fact is that when privatisation was introduced not enough Conservative Members said strongly that it was a mix, a muddle and a botch. It was, and we are all paying for that terrible privatisation. In parallel, we are paying for rail privatisation in my region. In both cases, there is absolutely fragmented ownership and a lack of “joined-upness”—somebody owning one bit does not talk to somebody in another bit. It is a mess. If we look seriously at privatisation, we can see that it has been a disaster for this country.

Simon Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Sheerman: With only four minutes left, I will not give way, as the right hon. Gentleman knows is the case.
	So often, politicians from all sides have been very reluctant to take on the big, hard issues. We only have to look at nuclear power. I have always thought that it was an option that we should have taken seriously and for which we should have been building long ago. Even with the six large energy companies, we have ended up without the ability to come forward with either the finance or the technology to build a nuclear power station, and instead have to look to Chinese money and French technology. What a dreadful situation in an energy sector that has been driven down to such a weak status and such low capacity by its botched privatisation.
	Of course we need to make big changes. To be really old-fashioned, I would say that we should have a royal commission on such a matter. I am in favour of the motion, and of the Government’s good decision to refer the energy market to the Competition and Markets Authority. Will it, however, be only a sticking plaster on a real and deeply structural problem in our deeply dysfunctional energy sector? I am afraid that it will be. I want there to be a royal commission, which could encompass the whole of the problem, rather than one bit of it.
	We all want efficient regulation. From looking at the present regulator—its strength and teeth, and its capacity to act and to be bold—I have to say that it has been woefully lacking in protecting my constituents and people up and down this country. To be truly political, that is part of my deep unease about how this Government in all their decisions—this is one of them—are moving us to a country in which there is a disparity between the really rich and ordinary people. I do not mean poor people, but those mentioned in that wonderful book,
	“The Spirit Level”, which argues that healthy societies and healthy democracies do not have an enormous gap between the rich or super-rich and ordinary people.
	Such a gap is developing in this country, and when we look back at this Liberal Democrat/Tory Administration, it is one reason why we will say that that was the time when our country became deeply divided, with the rich people being favoured by this privatisation and the Royal Mail privatisation. “Rest in peace” will be the epitaph of the Administration that has made this country more divided and more unhappy.

Tom Greatrex: Not least in the last speech, we have had an interesting, illuminating and at times passionate debate on the issue—more accurately, the set of issues—that is high on the agenda of many right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. As ever, and we are becoming used to this, the debate has been characterised by some very considered contributions, as well as by what are frankly rather desperate attempts to divert the debate away from fundamental concerns about how this market works or—more accurately—does not work.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) mentioned, this is the ninth Opposition day debate on aspects of energy policy. During that time, we have seen a remarkable shift from the Government, with the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, finally seeming to catch up with reality. For the record, I remind the House that his position has shifted from there not being an issue to address, through the answer being switching on its own, to a cack-handed attempt to jump on the back of concerns about the level of profitability in gas via his special adviser in the press a few weeks ago. Last week, he eventually accepted that the market over which he and his predecessor have presided for the past four years is not fit for purpose, does not work for consumers and does not work for the industry, in which there is a crisis of confidence and a deficit of trust. Today, we have heard the considered, final evaluation of the Secretary of State: a thought experiment. If the vacuous, empty, floundering response that we heard from him today does not make him realise that he is completely out of touch, nothing will.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), who has been a constant, dogged presence on the Energy and Climate Change Committee, like many Members in the Chamber today, made a persuasive case, as he often does, about the impact of policies and market failures on his constituents and those across the UK who struggle to pay their energy bills.
	The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), referred to investment opportunities. He was right to point out that the investment record of Centrica has not been good for a number of years. However, he was wrong to link SSE’s decision last week to freeze its prices to its pulling back from investment in offshore wind. I am sure that he will have the opportunity, if he has not had it already, to speak to SSE. It has been very clear that its decisions are related to continued difficulties, including the lack of clarity on the detail of the contracts for difference, and technical and cost challenges with the round 3 offshore projects, in which it is limiting its involvement.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk will know that SSE’s decision does not necessarily mean that those projects will not go ahead, because investment is coming from outside the big six. A number of state-owned utilities from other countries, including Norway and DONG in Denmark, are filling the investment gap with a number of projects. That helps to deal with the suggestion that is sometimes made by commentators—in fairness, it has not been made in this debate—that the big companies are a prerequisite for the investment that is required. As he knows, a number of utility companies are over-exposed in their home markets, which is leading to a pulling back of investment that has nothing to do with the price freeze proposals.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk made two other important points. The first was about the failures of the current regulator and the second was about the ring-fencing and legal separation of the generation and supply arms of the big companies. He is concerned about the impact of that. I am sure that he will be aware that when SSE announced its decision to separate last week, it referred to it as a tool to “improve transparency” and a
	“reform that is in the clear interests of customers”
	that would have only marginal cost implications. I believe that others will reach a similar position in the weeks and months ahead.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), whom I served alongside on the Public Bill Committee that considered the Energy Act 2013, rightly pointed out that reform to make the market clear, fair and transparent was almost entirely absent from that legislation. He will recall that he, I and others tried several times during the course of the Committee to move amendments to insert those issues into the Bill. I am sure that the Government, on reflection, will regret turning their face against those issues. My hon. Friend also made a point about mandatory open trading, which is the best possible way to increase liquidity and to have an impact on the forward market.
	The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) referred to the number of power plants that have closed and been mothballed. I am sure that he is aware that some of the mothballing seems to have been done in anticipation of the capacity market. That makes the case for the auctions to happen as soon as possible.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), either intentionally or out of genuine ignorance, failed to understand the proposals in our Green Paper on market reform. If he had read properly the document that he claims to have read, he would have seen that it makes a number of proposals to increase transparency in the market, which is required for investment and for consumer confidence.
	The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) suggested that the solution may lie in trusted brands. I am sure that he is aware that a number of trusted brands have been reluctant to enter the market, not least because the lack of transparency in the market would damage their reputation. The key is to ensure that we have transparency for the long term, as we have proposed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) referred to marine energy and to the nascent technologies that could have an impact in the
	2020s and beyond. We need a long-term commitment to decarbonisation and a 2030 decarbonisation target to maximise those opportunities.
	The hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), in a wide-ranging contribution, highlighted the potential role of co-operatives in the mix and the crisis of confidence in the current market, which underlines the case for change.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) referred to her constituents and, in particular, to those who are off the gas grid. I confirm for her again that the new regulator that we propose would regulate the off-grid market, as well as the on-grid market, because a number of her constituents and many other people have been the victims of poor practice in that part of the market.
	The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) said that he was concerned that the CMA reference would slow down investment. As he has heard today, investment has already slowed down. There is not a huge amount more that it can slow down. What he said made the case for getting on with the reforms now, rather than being an excuse to kick the issues into the long grass.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) put the issues with the functioning of the market and the failures in regulation into context very cogently. There is no reason why they should not be addressed now, rather than waiting until the end of the CMA investigation.
	Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) made clear the concerns that are held across this House about the functioning of our energy market.
	The contributions of many Members this afternoon have reflected the reality that in recent years it has become increasingly obvious that there is a dysfunctional market and alarmingly urgent that it be reset so that it is clear, fair and transparent. The reality is that the mark-up for domestic electricity increased from an average of 7p between 2001 and 2009 to 9.2p between 2010 and 2013. The reality is that bills have gone up by £300 in three years. The reality is that the investment in lower-carbon technologies has fallen from £7.2 billion in 2010 to less than £3 billion last year. The reality was exposed by the qualitative research by YouGov, which appeared in The Times, in which leading figures in the energy industry at CEO level said:
	“Customers were taken for granted, service was poor, and no one bothered to explain the situation to them”.
	That is a damning indictment of the reality that is known by the public, that is seen in the figures and that has been acknowledged, belatedly, by the industry itself.
	The response from the Government cannot be to say, “We will just sit tight and hope it gets better. Put it into the long grass.” The Government must not use the market referral as an excuse for inaction. As the SSE changes showed last week, there are reforms that can and should be made now. Ring-fencing between supply and generation, scrapping Ofgem and introducing the open trading of energy are policies for which we already have the evidence. There are some who worry that market referral is simply an attempt to kick the can down the road. I urge the Minister, who called for cross-party consensus in the Chamber last week, to
	demonstrate his interest in that by showing today that he has the stomach for reforms that can happen ahead of the CMA outcome. If the Government want to demonstrate that they are serious about reforming the market and improving the situation for customers and for the industry, including small suppliers and generators, they will vote for the motion. We can then get on with making the market clear, fair and transparent.

Gregory Barker: This has been a lively debate with excellent speeches from across the House on this critical issue. I apologise for leaving the Front Bench for a short while. I had to go upstairs and pass the last piece of the legislative jigsaw for the renewable heat incentive—a ground-breaking piece of legislation of which the coalition is proud.
	The fact that the referral of the energy market to the Competition and Markets Authority commands cross-party support is to be welcomed, as is cross-party support for our reforms to the electricity market to support clean energy generation, and the cross-party consensus on meeting our climate change objectives. Consensus on energy policy is not a product of the soggy centre, but something to which a responsible politician in government, or opposition, should aspire.
	In practical terms, I am glad that behind the bravado, if we listened carefully we could just about make out the muffled echo of the Labour party sounding a retreat, and we may be inching back towards greater consensus on the strategic direction of policy. The Labour party is being offered an elegant way out of its discredited, disastrous, made-for-a-soundbite energy policy. As attractive and tempting as it might be in the age of social media to offer electorally attractive but fundamentally undeliverable policies, the fact remains that investment certainty and a better deal for consumers that moves to a clear energy system is a complex proposition. Effective energy policy in government requires well thought through proposals that command the respect and support of consumers and investors alike.
	A clear demonstration of policy grip was shown by the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), whose speech I thought was a tour de force. In his characteristically elegant way he made the key and most important point—which was completely lost on the Opposition—that the Government cannot control the global wholesale price of gas, and that that is the key price maker for UK electricity. The Government can no more control the price of gas than King Canute could command the waves, and to pretend otherwise is to con the British public. My hon. Friend’s second point, which is that an attempt by any Government to freeze prices with such a draconian arbitrary intervention in the energy market would have a terrifying chill on investment across the sector, was heard loud and clear across the Chamber. As my hon. Friend said, we know the price freeze is a cynical political manoeuvre, designed to prop up the dominance of Labour’s big six.
	We heard many other excellent interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) spoke powerfully about how a price freeze will damage investment in new capacity, and my hon. Friend
	the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) was right to focus on putting consumers first and foremost in energy policy. We do not often hear from Labour about putting the consumer at the heart of energy policy, but the coalition is determined to do that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) pointed out the complexity of the energy markets and said we should focus more on energy efficiency, and I absolutely agree. We heard contributions from other Members, including the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who I thought was uncharacteristically ponderous and rather tiptoed around the illogicality of the Labour price freeze. We also heard contributions from the hon. Members for Angus (Mr Weir) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn). The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) said, in reference to the price freeze, that it is not a con to try something. I know he is sincere, but it is a con to try to sell something to the public when we know in our heart of hearts that it cannot work, and when every major commentator and expert in the field has said that it cannot work. That is trying to perpetrate a con.
	The bottom line is that Labour’s hit-and-run soundbite energy policy is not credible to consumers or investors. When it comes to UK energy policy, Labour has a hashtag, but we have a long-term economic plan. Labour talks of a bill freeze; we act to cut bills. Labour’s big answer is a new quango; we are delivering real action. Labour’s answer to our problems is more red tape; we want more competition. Labour put its trust in its new super-bureaucrats; we believe that the answer lies not with more bureaucrats and their super quango, but with entrepreneurs and dynamic new entrants—those are the keys to competition. Labour wants to go back to the 1970s and put Whitehall at the heart of energy markets; we, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, want to empower consumers. Labour wants the best tariffs for the over-75s; we have acted to put everyone on the best tariffs.
	Let us not just critique Labour’s record in opposition because we should not forget its record in government. Labour created the big six—[Interruption.] Yes, Labour Members may squeal; they hate to be reminded of it, but that is the fact. Labour created the big six. It had the opportunity to refer the issue to a competition inquiry, and not just Labour but the Leader of the Opposition failed to do so. Labour was responsible for the investment desert that characterised 13 years of under-investment in energy capacity. We saw contraction of competition under Labour, but the coalition is unleashing a new era of competition. Labour Members know that wholesale prices cannot be controlled. We would not know that from listening to them, but why else did gas prices double when they were in government and why else did electricity bills go up by more than 50% on their watch?
	We know that we cannot control the world price, but that does not mean we stand aside from the market. We are rolling up our sleeves and making real reforms. Since day one, we have worked to make the energy market more affordable, and to increase competition and unlock much-needed investment. We have made the energy market easier to navigate by forcing energy companies to put people on to the lowest tariffs. We have slashed the number of tariffs we inherited from Labour from 400 to just four per supplier, and forced suppliers to put consumers on the cheapest variable
	tariff. This month we confirmed that we will halve the time it takes to switch providers to just two weeks. We plan to make that even faster: we have made a commitment to 24-hour switching and we will deliver on it. As
	The Sun
	says today, switching is the best hope for consumers.
	We are making the energy market more affordable by forcing energy companies to compensate customers for mis-selling and overcharging. Labour did not do that; we have legislated for it. We have given Ofgem new powers to force energy companies to compensate consumers for mis-selling and overcharging. We have also provided discounts and financial support to help people to pay their bills, including £130 off energy bills for 2 million households this winter. We have protected 12.7 million pensioners’ winter fuel payments, made cold weather payments to more than 4 million people, and cut taxes that add £50 to energy bills.
	Last week, SSE announced a price freeze. This is not a Labour-style, 1970s legislatively imposed price freeze that would kill investment and scare away investors, but a price freeze borne of competition and an increasingly competitive market. SSE said that decisions taken to reduce delivery costs of the energy company obligation, and decisions announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement, were the principal factors in it being able to make this price commitment.
	We are making the energy market more competitive by deregulating the energy market to encourage vital new entrants. Nine new entrants have entered the market in the past two years alone, and the number of customers with independent suppliers has trebled under the coalition. We are forcing the big six to play fair with small suppliers.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 248, Noes 275.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) raised with Mr Speaker after Prime Minister’s Question Time the Prime Minister’s saying earlier that it was in Labour’s manifesto to sell off Royal Mail. My hon. Friend quoted the Labour manifesto policy, which was that
	“continuing modernisation and investment will be needed by the Royal Mail in the public sector.”
	I wonder whether you can help, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Prime Minister has misled the House, inadvertently, does he not have a responsibility to come to the House at the first opportunity to explain and to apologise to the House for what he has said?

Dawn Primarolo: Thank you, Mr Winnick. I get the drift of your point of order, which, as an experienced Member of this House, you will appreciate is not a point of order for me in the Chair; it is a matter of debate and interpretation, and each Member of this House is responsible for their contributions during Question Times and debates. It is not a responsibility of the Chair.

David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Dawn Primarolo: I have ruled on your point of order, Mr Winnick, so with respect, you cannot come back a second time and put the same one to me.

Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just been contacted by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes)
	about a constituent of his who is being removed by the Home Office today. She is on her way to Heathrow airport, her mother having given evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs yesterday.
	I am seeking your guidance because I do not know whether it is in order, given that the hon. Gentleman has made this request to me—I understand he has spoken to other members of the Select Committee—for a potential witness to a Select Committee to be removed from the United Kingdom before they have had an opportunity to give evidence, if indeed she is called to give evidence. May I seek your guidance on the rules, so that the Select Committee does not do anything out of order?

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman raises an extremely interesting point of order, which poses a number of complicated procedural questions. I hope he will forgive me if I do not rule directly now on his point of order. I need to confer with the Speaker. I will make sure that the right hon. Gentleman gets a reply as quickly as possible, and that the House is informed as well.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Police

That the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.—(Gavin Barwell.)
	Question agreed to.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Dawn Primarolo: Before I ask the Minister to move the motion, I should point out to the House that there is a note on the Order Paper saying that the draft order under the Terrorism Act 2000, item 4 on the Order Paper, has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I can now inform the House that the Joint Committee considered the order at its meeting earlier this afternoon and decided that it does not need to draw the House’s special attention to it.

James Brokenshire: I beg to move,
	That the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 31 March, be approved.
	The Government are determined to do all they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. In addition, it is important that we demonstrate our support for other members of the international community in their efforts to tackle terrorism wherever it occurs. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We propose to add Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which is also known as Ansar Jerusalem, Al Murabitun and Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 14th proscription order under that Act.
	Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, including the glorification of terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation.
	In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors. These are the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the UK; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism. Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation, invite support for a proscribed organisation, arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation.

Keith Vaz: When we proscribe an organisation that has links to other countries—the first two the Minister mentioned have links to Egypt; the second two have
	links to Tunisia—do we consult those countries before placing an order before the House? I support what the Minister is doing today, but I just want to be clear about the process. Did we tell those countries that the orders were on their way?

James Brokenshire: The orders are made after careful consideration, part of which involves input and consideration from the Foreign Office. That might or might not include co-operation or contact with individual Governments or authorities. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that such broad consideration is always given to these orders, in the light of the factors that I have identified, including the impact that they could have here in the UK and on British citizens overseas. There is a need to send out a clear message in relation to a number of these terrorist organisations.
	I shall expand a little on the steps that are being undertaken. They include research into and investigation of open-source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across the government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The Home Secretary is supported in her decision-making process by the cross-Whitehall proscription review group. The decision to proscribe is taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that ABM, Al Murabitun and Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia are currently concerned in terrorism. Hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but it might help the House if I provide a brief summary of their activities.
	Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis—ABM—is an al-Qaeda-inspired militant Islamist group based in the northern Sinai region of Egypt. The group is said to recruit within Egypt and abroad, and it aims to create an Egyptian state ruled by sharia law. ABM is assessed to have been responsible for a number of attacks on security forces in Egypt since 2011. The attacks appear to have increased since the overthrow of the Morsi Government in July 2013. The group’s reach goes beyond the Sinai region, in that it claims responsibility for a number of attacks in Cairo as well as cross-border attacks against Israel.
	ABM has undertaken attacks using vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices and surface-to-air missiles. I shall give the House some examples of attacks for which the group has claimed responsibility. They include an attack on the Egyptian Interior Minister in September 2013 in which a UK national was seriously injured; an attack on a police compound in Mansoura on 24 December 2013 that killed at least 16 people, including 14 police officers; an attack on an Egyptian police helicopter in the northern Sinai on 25 January 2014; the assassination of General Mohammed Saeed, an official in the interior ministry, on 28 January 2014; and an attack on a tourist bus in which three South Koreans and their Egyptian driver died on 16 January 2014.
	The second group, Al Murabitun, resulted from a merger of two al-Qaeda in the Maghreb splinter groups that are active in Mali and Algeria: the Movement for the Unity and Jihad in West Africa, and Mokhtar Belmokhtar’s group, the Al Mulathamine Battalion, which included the commando element known as “Those Who Sign in Blood”. The merger was announced in a public statement in August 2013. The group aspires to
	unite Muslims from the Nile to the Atlantic, and has affirmed its loyalty to the al-Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the emir of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Omar. Al Murabitun’s first statement threatened France and its allies in the region, and called on Muslims to target French interests everywhere.
	Belmokhtar has announced that he will not continue to lead the group to allow a new generation of jihadist leaders to come to the fore. Reports indicate that the new commander has fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and against the international intervention in Afghanistan in the 2000s. Although the group has not claimed responsibility for any terrorist attacks since the merger, both precursor groups participated in a number of terrorist attacks and kidnapping for ransom in the past 13 months. Belmokhtar’s group was responsible for the attack against the In Amenas gas facility in January 2013 that resulted in the death of more than 30 people, including Britons. In May 2013, the two groups targeted a military barracks in Agadez in Niger and a uranium mine in Arlit which supplies French nuclear reactors. The suicide attack in Agadez resulted in the deaths of at least 20 people. Shortly after the attacks, Belmokhtar indicated that they had been carried out as a form of revenge for the death of Abdelhamid Abou Zeid, an al-Qaeda in the Maghreb commander who was killed by French forces in northern Mali earlier in 2013. Despite previously separating themselves from al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, citing leadership issues and the desire to expand their control, both precursor groups continued to co-operate and fight alongside AQM fighters in Mali and other regions of west Africa—that activity has continued since the merger.
	The Sahel region continues to see high threats of kidnap and terrorist attacks, which were further heightened following the French military intervention in Mali. Hostages are currently held in the Sahel and surrounding regions, which includes Algeria, Cameroon, Libya and Nigeria. The Canadians designated Belmokhtar’s group in November 2013 and the US designated it in December 2013, specifying Al Murabitun as an alias.
	The third group, Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia—AAS-T—is a radical Islamist group founded in April 2011. The group aims to establish sharia law in Tunisia and eliminate western influence. Between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals may be attracted to rallies organised by the movement. The group is ideologically aligned to al-Qaeda and has links to al-Qaeda-affiliated groups. It is reported that the group announced its loyalty to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in September 2013.
	AAS-T’s leader, Seif Allah Ibn Hussein, also known as Abu Ayadh al-Tunis, is a former al-Qaeda veteran combatant in Afghanistan. He has been hiding following the issue of a warrant for his arrest in relation to the allegation that he incited the attack on the US embassy in Tunis that killed four people in September 2012. Salafists believed to have links with AAS-T are assessed to be responsible for the attacks in October 2011 on a television station and the attack in June 2012 on an art exhibit. AAS-T is assessed to be responsible for the attacks on the US embassy and American school in Tunis in September 2012. The Tunisian Government believe AAS-T was responsible for the assassinations of two national coalition Assembly Members, those of Chokri Belaid in February 2013 and Mohamed Brahmi in July 2013. Additionally, elements of the group are
	believed to have been involved in the attempted suicide attack, in October 2013, at a hotel in a tourist resort in Sousse, where a significant number of British tourists were staying. More than 400,000 British tourists visited Tunisia last year. The Tunisian Government listed AAS-T as a terrorist group in 2013 and the US did so in January 2014.
	Subject to the agreement of this House and the other place, the order will come into force on Friday 4 April. It is, of course, not appropriate for us to discuss specific intelligence that leads to any decision to proscribe.

Nigel Dodds: Paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum states:
	“If a proscribed organisation…applies to the Secretary of State for deproscription, the proscription of the organisation will be reviewed.”
	How does that work in practice? If an organisation and its members are illegal—proscribed—how do they have the locus to apply to be have the proscription reviewed?

James Brokenshire: Under the current regime, the organisation or person affected by a proscription can submit a written application to the Home Secretary requesting that she considers whether they or a specified organisation can be removed from the list of proscribed organisations. There is a process for this. The application should also state the grounds on which it is made, and the Home Secretary is required to determine the application within 90 days.
	If the Secretary of State agrees to de-proscribe that organisation, she has to lay an order before Parliament removing it from the list of proscribed organisations. In practice, all the evidence and intelligence have to be considered across Whitehall. The order is then subject to the affirmative resolution process. In other words, it is a similar process to a proscription application. I have to say to the House that no de-proscription applications have been received since June 2009.

Keith Vaz: On the process of de-proscription, I have raised it whenever these orders have gone through the House. The process is not as robust as it should be. David Anderson, the independent terrorism tsar—if we can call him that—has made specific suggestions to try to improve it. When I last raised this matter with the Minister, he said that he would come back to the House shortly—to use that classic phrase—and explain his views. Does he have views now on the process?

James Brokenshire: I did come back to the House on the last proscription order. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to participate in that particular debate, but I did underline that it is the Government’s intention that de-proscription should be considered on receipt of an application setting out the grounds on which it is made. De-proscription will then be considered by the Home Secretary in accordance with the Terrorism Act 2000. In other words, it is on an application process, and that is the view to which we have come. Just to finish the point on this process, if the application is refused, there is an appeals process that operates through the Proscribed Organisations Appeal
	Commission. The commission will allow an appeal if, after applying judicial review principles, it considers that the decision to refuse the proscription was flawed. I hope that that explains to the right hon. Gentleman the process that we adopt in these circumstances.
	In conclusion, it is right that we add Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Al Murabitun and Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia to the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, and I hope that the House will support the Government in that move.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Minister for his statement and for the letter from the Home Secretary to the shadow Home Secretary, laying out the rationale for the proscription of the three groups.
	There is a long tradition of cross-party co-operation on issues of national security, and the Opposition will support the Government in their motion today. As the Minister has laid out, section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 sets out the grounds on which a group can be proscribed.
	Proscription is a vital tool against terrorism, and it enables us to tackle and disrupt terror groups co-operating around the world. Of course that makes proscription a serious matter. It makes it illegal to belong to, or support in any way, a listed organisation. This is a draconian measure, so we should use the power only when we know that it is appropriate.
	In this case, the Opposition are happy to accept the Minister, and the Home Secretary’s assurances on the basis that all three groups seem to have been involved in terrorism at the highest end of seriousness, including some directed at our citizens and allies.
	Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis came to prominence during the Arab spring. It aims to establish Sharia law in Egypt. The group, which appears to be al-Qaeda-inspired if not linked, has been responsible for a string of terror attacks, which the Minister outlined. In 2010, the group was linked with an attack on a Jordanian and Israeli pipeline. In 2013, it was thought to be responsible for rocket attacks into southern Israel as well as the murder of three South Koreans and an Egyptian. In January this year, as the Minister set out, the group was linked with a suicide attack that killed 16 people, including 14 police officers.
	Al Murabitun has an even closer al-Qaeda link, having emerged out of al-Qaeda in the Land of Islamic Maghreb and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa. The group has been linked to jihadists across north Africa and to terror attacks in Algeria and Niger, both killing scores of people. In particular, I should mention the January 2013 attack on the In Amenas gas facility, which killed 30 people including Britons and Americans.
	Finally we have Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia, whose founder is known to have ties to al-Qaeda. The State Department says that that organisation
	“is ideologically aligned with al-Qaeda and tied to its affiliates, including AQIM”.
	The group has been involved in a number of attacks on western targets in Libya and Tunisia.
	The Opposition are always limited in what we can say in these cases, because we do not have access to the same intelligence as the Minister and the Home Secretary.
	It would be helpful if the Minister could comment in general terms on why the United Kingdom has decided to act now, as many of the groups have committed attacks on our allies or have resulted in the deaths of Britons over the past two years.
	Last time a proscription order was discussed in the House, I raised the effect of proscription on content relating to terror groups appearing on social media. That content is hosted outside the United Kingdom but is readily accessible in the United Kingdom. The Minister helpfully laid out the work of the counter terrorism internet referral unit. Will he confirm what progress the group has made on removing material in the past year and how many pages it has managed to take down? Last year, the Minister told the House how the counter terrorism internet referral unit took referrals and passed them on to ISPs. What measures are in place proactively to seek out such sites and to get the hosting companies, whether they are Google, Facebook or other companies, to seek out and remove such content?
	I was pleased this morning that the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, announced additional industry support for the Internet Watch Foundation to tackle online child abuse. What similar measures have been discussed in relation to counter-terrorism?
	As I said earlier, the Opposition are always limited in what we can say about proscription, because it is up to the Home Secretary to analyse the evidence and make a decision. However, that did not stop the Government using proscription to score political points when they were in opposition. The present Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said in this House that he would ban the group Hizb ut-Tahrir. I hope the Minister will comment on why the Prime Minister made that rash promise. If the Prime Minister was right to make that promise, why has not the Home Secretary acted on it?

Keith Vaz: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question of Hizb ut-Tahrir. I was in the House when the Prime Minister made that pledge and I think he meant it genuinely and thinks that the group ought to be banned because of its violent activity. Is she therefore as surprised as I am that even though the Prime Minister feels that a group is a terrorist organisation, it carries on with its activities and the Government appear to be unable to do anything about it?

Diana Johnson: The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee makes an important point. I hope that the Minister will respond to our concerns and will be able to reassure the House that he is continuing to watch and consider the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
	Last year, I raised in the House my concerns about the activity of Hizb ut-Tahrir on university campuses. Hizb ut-Tahrir was singled out by the Prevent strategy review as a group that was active on university campuses radicalising students. It would be helpful if the Minister could update the House on what has happened to deal with that issue.
	Finally, I want to raise the issue mentioned by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). It concerns de-proscription and time limits. The Minister is well aware from the comments and
	interventions that have been made as the House has considered several such motions that the Home Affairs Committee and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation have long been asking the Government how a group can be de-proscribed. The only group ever to be de-proscribed obtained that through judicial review. The Select Committee has been pushing the Government for some time to get a proper structure in place to make these decisions.
	According to the independent reviewer of terrorism, the Home Office was at one point considering an annual review of the proscribed list to see which groups still met the criteria. Of course, we should encourage any group to renounce terrorism. The Home Office clearly needs to justify the continued proscription of terror groups, on some of which we know that the independent reviewer of terrorism suggests there is no current evidence of terrorist involvement even in this century. According to the independent reviewer’s website last summer, the Home Office had compiled a list of up to 14 groups that no longer met the criteria for proscription. Will the Minister confirm that that is correct?
	The independent reviewer had been calling for that annual review of proscribed groups, but the Home Office seems now to have ignored that suggestion and instead instigated this procedure, which the Minister set out in response to interventions, whereby an individual who is directly affected by a proscription order can apply for the order to be lifted. Owing to the level of concern, does the Minister consider it appropriate to set out in detail how that procedure takes place, so that hon. Members can fully understand how an individual, who might put themselves in difficulty by coming forward, might access it and take it forward? It would be helpful if the Minister were to put a letter or note in the Library setting that out in detail.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). It is always good to participate in a debate on a measure that has all-party support. I am convinced that the order will pass through the House, because the House understands the importance of these orders and the significance of counter-terrorism issues.
	I am delighted to see two members of the Home Affairs Committee here today, both of whom play an important part in the Committee’s deliberations: the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). The Committee is undertaking an inquiry into counter-terrorism, and it is our intention to publish our report at the beginning of May. The inquiry is slightly longer than those the Committee usually undertakes; it has now lasted about six months. The issue of proscription is one that we have raised in our Committee sessions. Committee members currently spend more time with the Minister for Security and Immigration than they do with members of their own families. He was with us for an hour and a half yesterday at the Home Affairs Committee and here he is again in his other job. I am not sure about British jobs for British workers, but at least two jobs for each Minister may be the solution to the unemployment problems in this country. So far he has done them extremely well. Only time will tell, given his huge work load. I am one of his fans, so I am sure he will cope.
	Back Benchers and members of the Select Committee usually take it as read and accept at face value a Minister—be it a member of this Government or the previous Government—coming to the Dispatch Box to say that they have intelligence and believe strongly that certain organisations should be banned. We appreciate that there are issues that Ministers, especially the Minister for Security and Immigration, know about that they cannot disclose to the House. Therefore, we support what he says. I certainly support it, and I am sure the House will support it. It is awful to sit here and hear about the activities of various groups—Ansar Jerusalem and Al Murabitun, operating in Egypt, and Ansar al Sharia, operating in Tunisia. Some have been operating for a good deal of time, and in respect of the atrocities that in some cases have been committed by these groups, they go way back to 2011.
	My concern, which I raised in my earlier intervention, is that those organisations are not household names for the British public. Therefore, when Ministers tell us about them, we listen carefully and accept what they say. That is why I think that when an order of this kind comes before the House, the Government ought to ensure that the Governments concerned—I would not like to call them the parent Governments, but the Governments those groups seek to overthrow—are informed.
	Before coming to the House today I spoke with the Tunisian ambassador, His Excellency Nabil Ammar, an excellent representative of Tunisia, who informed me that the Tunisian Government were not aware that this order was coming before the House. That could be the result of a breakdown in communications between the Foreign Office and the Home Office, or perhaps our Government do not tell foreign Governments when this is about to happen, but I think that it would be wise for them to do so in future.
	The order is to come into force on Friday. I think that all these organisations are banned in their own countries. They certainly are Tunisia, although I could not get through to the Egyptian ambassador to speak to him about these matters. The Tunisian ambassador tells me that Ansar al Sharia was banned three months ago, partly because of the changes following the Tunisian revolution, the election of a Government and then their fall and replacement by the present President, Moncef Marzouki.
	My plea is that in future it should be incumbent on the Home Office to tell the Foreign Office and for the Foreign Office at least to tell the foreign Governments concerned. That might have been done in Cairo and Tunis, but it certainly has not been done in London. We are concerned with what those groups are getting up to not in Cairo, Sharm el-Sheikh, Alexandria, Tunis, Hammamet or Sousse, but here in our country. It is therefore important that we get that information across.
	It would also be helpful if the Minister could tell us—I am not sure whether he intends to wind up the debate—whether he knows how many people are operating in those organisations in our country. I know that it is not the 5,000 he mentioned with regard to Ansar Jerusalem, which regularly attracts hundreds of thousands of people, or Ansar al Sharia, which I am told has around 100,000 people involved in Tunisia, even though only 5,000 might
	turn up to its demonstrations. I think that it is important to know broadly how many people are involved in those activities here.
	I want to make two other points, one of which concerns the way that certain organisations can change their name, telephone number and website but carry on being involved in the same activities. On a previous occasion I used the example of Anjem Choudary, whose organisation had a number of different names, including Islam4UK, Al-Muhajiroun, Call to Submission, Islamic Path, the London School of Sharia and the Saved Sect. The latest name is Islamic Emergency Defence—IED. I know that the Minister is on top of his brief, but perhaps he could reassure the House that we are monitoring changes in names, websites and addresses so that we know whether organisations are still there but called by other names.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, I am concerned about what is happening with Hizb ut-Tahrir. I think that the Prime Minister genuinely wants to ban that group. He has probably gone to the Home Secretary and said, “Ban this group. I don’t like them. They’re up to mischief,” and the Home Secretary, who I know is tough, would ban something if she could, as we know from Monday’s delegated legislation Committee. Why is Hizb ut-Tahrir still carrying on its activities when the Prime Minister, who I know feels very strongly about these matters, feels that it ought to be banned? I was in the House on the occasion in May 2011, which I am sure you will recall, Mr Speaker, when he made a passionate plea for the organisation to be banned, so I hope that we can satisfy his desires on this subject.
	My final point is about de-proscription. David Anderson, the terrorism tsar, if I may call him that, felt that there ought to be time-limited proscription. I have raised before and raise again the situation of the Tamil community and the LTTE—the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The head of the LTTE, Mr Prabhakaran, has been killed, and the organisation has ceased to exist, but it is still banned. I have 7,000 members of the Tamil community in my constituency. Before you took the Chair, Mr Speaker—I think it was your last delegation before you took office—you went to visit Sri Lanka and saw for yourself the misery that had been inflicted on the Tamil community. Sometimes I get calls from members of my community who feel that the LTTE ought to be de-proscribed. Obviously, the Minister will say, “Well, let them apply for it”, but who could do that? People do not want to be associated with this organisation. If they start to fill in the application forms, somebody might think that they were involved with the LTTE, but that is not the case—they are good law-abiding Tamils. There should be a mechanism—perhaps an automatic trigger—that enables the Government and Ministers to review these matters before the order becomes a continuing one that goes on for ever.

Jim Shannon: I want to make a brief contribution and ask a few questions of the Minister.
	We in the Democratic Unionist party fully support the Government’s intention to proscribe these organisations and feel that that is necessary. Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis has specifically targeted the state of Israel. As a supporter of the state of Israel, I am concerned about that. There
	have been attacks on troops and on the pipeline between Israel and Egypt, so it has attacked the military life and the economic life of Israel. I am keen to hear the Minister’s views, although I fully appreciate that there are restrictions on what he can say. Do the Government feel that there is a specific threat against the Israeli embassy or Israeli interests here in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom? In fairness, the same thing probably applies to Egypt as well. Will he tell us as much as he can about the exchange of information and intelligence that clearly has to take place? The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said that Tunisia was not aware of the proscription that is proposed today. There must be proscription, yes, but we also need to make sure that intelligence exchange takes place, given the clear threat to middle east peace.
	On Al Muribitun, the explanatory memorandum mentions at the bottom of page 2 the merger of two al-Qaeda groups in Mali and Algeria. This issue is very real to us in Northern Ireland because of the dissident republican attacks that have taken place. According to security information and intelligence information that we have received and are aware of, the dissident republicans have very close contacts with al-Qaeda and with the Taliban, but particularly al-Qaeda, in relation to the supply of weapons and of terrorist expertise regarding the creation of bombs. The bomb attack on a Police Service of Northern Ireland Land Rover on the Falls road just two weeks ago involved a specific type of bomb that has been used by al-Qaeda in its attacks in the middle east. All the indications are that there are close links between al-Qaeda and dissident republicans. That poses a threat to us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will the Minister comment on that, as far as he is able to, in his response?
	It seems to us in Northern Ireland that dissident republicans are focusing on attacks on members of the security forces, both in uniform and at home. The sophistication of weaponry and of the bomb attacks would indicate that there is that close relationship I mentioned. When the Minister responds, I feel it is important that he offers the House and all Members for Northern Ireland constituencies assurance that everything is being done to combat that strong relationship.
	All the intelligence points us towards there being a relationship between al-Qaeda and the organisations listed in the order—certainly the second one. How will our relationship with other countries such as Israel, Egypt, Tunisia and Lebanon be affected? The second organisation listed has specifically targeted Christians in Beirut, and the Lebanese Government and army have responded. Again, we see specific attacks on people to whom many of us would feel that we owe some support, including the Christians in Lebanon.
	I look forward to the Minister’s response to those few points.

James Brokenshire: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this short debate this afternoon. I am pleased to note that their contributions have supported assessment of the Home Secretary and myself that Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Al Murabitun and Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia should all be added to the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
	Proscription sends a strong message that terrorist organisations are not tolerated in the UK and deters them from operating here. I know that a number of questions have been asked about the nature of any activity that those groups may undertake in the UK. Unfortunately I am unable to comment on intelligence matters but it is important to underline the point that the proscription regime is intended to deter activity in this country.
	Fifty two international and 14 Northern Ireland-related terrorist organisations are already proscribed. To give a sense of the enforcement regime that has sat alongside that, I point out that, between 2001 and the end of March 2013, 32 people have been charged with proscription-related offences as a primary offence in Great Britain, and 16 have been convicted.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis. As I indicated, that group has claimed responsibility for a number of cross-border attacks against Israel. That gives him some sense of its activity.
	Another question asked was why now, rather than at a different time. Decisions on whether and when to proscribe an organisation are taken after extensive consideration and in the light of a full assessment of all available information. It is important that decisions have a robust evidence base, do not have an adverse impact on any ongoing investigations and support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. Those factors often sit within our thinking. There is a statutory test that needs to be met in connection with a decision to proscribe.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked about speaking to parent countries when an order is laid. There may be discussions in advance of laying an order, and some groups are nominated for proscription by the parent country, to use that terminology. Ultimately, however, decisions have to be taken according to the national security interests of this country and those of our citizens overseas. Although I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s point, that is what must always drive our consideration. Therefore, I would not want to be bound in all circumstances. Even so, careful consideration is given to the matters.
	The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), asked about social media. I can update the House that since 2010 the counter terrorism internet referral unit has taken down more than 29,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material from the internet. I underline the fact that any online activity by the three groups under consideration, including Facebook pages and Twitter accounts, has been referred to CTIRU. If it is assessed as illegal—there is a legal test that has to be met—CTIRU will flag it directly to Facebook and Twitter for removal.
	I reassure the hon. Lady that we continue to have discussions with the industry and I take the issue extremely seriously. As the right hon. Member for Leicester East will attest, I also told the Home Affairs Committee, when we touched on social media, that we are considering whether a code of conduct and other, similar measures would be appropriate in order to ensure an effective response.
	As I said during the previous proscription debate, the Government do not intend to set a time limit on proscription. We consider the existing de-proscription
	mechanism provided by the Terrorism Act 2000 to be sufficient. The legislation allows de-proscription to be considered on receipt of an application setting out the grounds on which it is being made. Any application will be considered by the Home Secretary, in accordance with the Act. In my opening speech, I set out some of the detail on the time limits, the processes and procedures and the consideration given in that regard. I hope that when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North examines
	Hansard
	tomorrow, she will see that I have set out the process and how it is intended to operate. Any information provided as part of a de-proscription application is given a number of statutory protections so that people should be able to come forward if appropriate.
	Hizb ut-Tahrir has been mentioned in this and a number of previous debates. It is not currently proscribed in the UK. Proscription can be considered only when the Home Secretary believes that terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000, is a concern. That statutory test needs to be satisfied in order to bring a proscription motion—an application order—before this House. The Government continue to have significant concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we will continue to monitor its activities very closely. Indeed, individual members of Hizb ut-Tahrir are, of course, subject to the general criminal law. We will seek to ensure that Hizb ut-Tahrir and similar groups cannot operate without challenge in public places in this country.
	The hon. Lady highlighted the issue of university campuses. Very good work has been undertaken with universities, the National Union of Students and others. Those of our regional Prevent co-ordinators who are focused on the university sector are providing good advice, information and knowledge to establishments and institutions in order better to support their work in understanding who may be coming to speak on a university campus and use their accommodation and facilities. We have also been supporting the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in important work to ensure that universities focus on any relevant activities.

Keith Vaz: It is really important that the issue of the internet has been raised by both Front Benchers. The Home Affairs Committee recently visited the headquarters of Google—I do not know whether the Minister has been there—to look at the work it is undertaking and the co-operation between the Home Office and the internet service providers that enables us to monitor very carefully those who wish to use the internet in order to prosecute inappropriate activity.

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman was not in his place when I touched on that issue a few moments ago. He will know that I mentioned it in my evidence to his Select Committee, which has recently had a session with Google. I recognise the Select Committee’s work to support community groups to harness social media and other technologies more effectively to ensure that there is a full and informed debate on the internet, not one simple narrative.
	I have highlighted the work of the counter terrorism internet referral unit, as well as our more general work and ongoing dialogue with the industry about what further steps can be taken. The CTIRU has reach in this
	country, but much of the material is hosted overseas. Some of the steps taken in and consideration given to combating child sexual exploitation imagery—ensuring that it is more effectively filtered and blocked—is learning that can be taken forward and applied in this area. That theme very much underpinned the recommendations of the extremism taskforce. We are continuing to do that work.

Diana Johnson: To return to the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir, was the Prime Minister rash to promise that he would ban it?

James Brokenshire: The Prime Minister was very clear in underlining the concern about that group. As I have said, we continue to be concerned about that organisation, which is why we continue to monitor its activities. I have already told the House that the Government obviously have to be cognisant of the statutory tests in looking at all the evidence and deciding whether tests are satisfied. We do not comment on which organisations continue to be under review for proscription, so I will not be led down that path, but we have to be satisfied on the clear statutory tests in introducing an order in this House.
	Another issue relates to groups changing their name. Section 3(6) of the 2000 Act allows the Home Secretary, by an order subject to the negative resolution procedure, to specify an alternative name for a proscribed organisation. We keep under close review whether organisations are seeking to use an alias. We have used that mechanism to introduce orders to add other names of proscribed organisations. I underline that the use of an alternative name that is not listed does not prevent the police and the Crown Prosecution Service from taking action against an individual for proscription offences. Such action is based on an assessment made by the police and the CPS.
	I have commented on de-proscription. The right hon. Member for Leicester East has highlighted the LTTE—the Tamil Tigers—in the past. He congratulated me on my current role and the work in which I am engaged, and now that he is back in his place I want to recognise the many jobs that he does as an MP and Chair of the Select Committee—it does a broad spread of work in my areas of responsibility and other areas—and he is involved in other activities. I certainly congratulate him on the many jobs that he holds. He has raised the issue of de-proscription as Chair of the Select Committee, as well as in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. We judge that the responsibility for it is as I explained in relation to the de-proscription process.

Keith Vaz: The Minister is so kind and I do not want this to turn into a love-in—after all, we are talking about terrorism—but may I point out that all those jobs are unpaid, apart from that of being an MP?

James Brokenshire: I would never imply otherwise. I merely highlight the enormous breadth of the right hon. Gentleman’s work and the importance of the Select Committee’s work. On that positive note—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister is suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman is multifaceted, ubiquitous and selfless. Is that what he is saying?

James Brokenshire: I could not come up with a more eloquent description, so I will not tread on that territory.
	The agreement of the House that the three organisations should be proscribed under the relevant legislation sends a strong message in respect of those groups and underlines our focus on securing this country from the threat of terrorism. I therefore commend the order to the House.
	Question put and agreed to
	Resolved,
	That the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 31 March, be approved.

Mr Speaker: I have given further consideration to the point of order that was made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) earlier this afternoon. I realise that the question he raised deserves an urgent response, given that the deportation of the young woman is imminent.
	This House does not interfere with the due process of law. It is not a contempt of the House for the Administration to continue a legal process, even when there is a possibility that it will clash with the wishes of a Select Committee. Ultimately, it is not for the Chair but for the House to decide questions of privilege and contempt. That said, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that line, there are established ways of doing so after the fact, if need be. To put it simply, if he is alleging that there has been a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House, our process requires that he write to me to make that allegation. I would then consider whether the issue should be given precedence in the deliberations of the House. I hope that that is helpful.

Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful for your ruling and for the speed with which it was delivered, given the urgency of the matter. Thank you.

PETITION
	 — 
	On-shore Wind Farm Developments in Winterton, North Lincolnshire

Andrew Percy: The people of the East Riding of Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire have taken their fair share of wind turbines over the past few years, and we continue to consider all applications sensibly. However, I have received a petition on behalf of residents in the Winterton area who are concerned about the proposed Ironstone Quarry wind farm, to which I am also heavily opposed.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of members of the Winterton Against Inappropriate Turbines group,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that action must be taken to address the cumulative impact of on-shore wind farm developments in the area around the North Lincolnshire settlements of Winterton, Burton Upon Stather, West Halton and Coleby.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons recognise that the latest development to enter the planning appeals process, three turbines at the Ironstone Quarry site at Winterton which would take the total number of built, consented or planned industrial wind turbines in the immediate area around the town to over 60, with many more in the wider area, is a step too far. In particular, we call on the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to recover this appeal to ensure that the correct weight is placed on the key issues of landscape, heritage assets and cumulative impact.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001341]

LGBT RIGHTS (UGANDA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Pamela Nash: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important and timely debate.
	While England celebrated its first same-sex marriages over the weekend, including that of a former constituent of mine, Peter McGraith, who was among the first to marry in the early hours of Saturday morning, scenes of jubilation of a different kind in Uganda made me feel physically sick. Parades have been taking place to celebrate the passing of the Anti-Homosexuality Act; to celebrate that the human rights of Ugandans are being undermined because they happen to be gay in a country determined to regress legislation relating to homosexuality. It is almost laughable that those celebrations are continuing in the streets of Kampala in the same week as the Equal Opportunities Tribunal opened in that city to great fanfare. Its launch press release claims:
	“The Tribunal will handle complaints related to discrimination and marginalisation to ensure that everybody is treated equally regardless of their sex, age, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, religion, health status, social or economic standing, political opinion and disability.”
	While I hope that that new institution does much to eradicate intolerance in Uganda, those of us in the Chamber will notice one glaring omission: sexuality. As hon. Members will know, President Museveni signed the Anti-Homosexuality Act into law five weeks ago, and its impact has already been felt by Ugandans, even before the abhorrent law has been enforced. It has been signed into law by the President, which technically means that it can be fully implemented at any time, although no one has been arrested yet. Convention means that the new law should now be gazetted—or published—in order formally to tell the nation about it, but that is not absolutely, legally necessary, leading to confusion in the country.
	A legal petition has been submitted to the constitutional court in Uganda, with MP Fox Odoi-Oywelowo and leading activist Frank Mugisha, who is known to many of us in this House, among the petitioners. The petition states that the Anti-Homosexuality Act is in direct contravention of the Ugandan constitution. Unfortunately the petition cannot delay the enforcement of the law, but the legal challenge is extremely significant and I hope it is successful. In the meantime, LGBT people in Uganda are facing increased risk of violence and persecution every single day.
	The brave non-governmental organisation, Sexual Minorities Uganda—or SMUG, as it is widely known—has informed me that it knows of more than 40 violent attacks on LGBT people in Uganda since the law was passed in December, including at least one murder. However, SMUG does not have the resources to monitor that rise adequately. The monitoring and reporting of human rights has been a crucial and integral part of the roles of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development over the years. Will the Government undertake human rights monitoring in Uganda to document the violence and terror that I think constitutes the human rights abuses
	that LGBT people face every day? If we monitor and publicise such abuses, we might shine a light on them and prevent them from happening at all.
	Unfortunately, many people are at serious risk of attack, and one reason for that is the actions of the tabloid newspaper, Red Pepper. It recently published the names of “200 Top Homos”—that was the headline—many with photographs, including of Frank Mugisha. I have already made it clear in a recent Westminster Hall debate that my blood ran cold when I saw that report because I fear that history might repeat itself. Three years ago another awful Ugandan tabloid, Rolling Stone, published a similar list, which included the name of SMUG’s leader at the time, David Kato. Rolling Stone decided to out gay Ugandans, and in the process it deliberately stoked twisted vigilantism that led ultimately to the murder of David Kato.
	The David Cairns Foundation, set up in memory of my predecessor chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, has provided immediate financial assistance for a limited number of at-risk individuals to get to a safe place in Uganda following the outbreak of violence. I believe that this could be expanded at a very low cost. It is more than the David Cairns Foundation can afford, but a fund could provide an emergency phone line, transport and safe accommodation to rent in emergencies. SMUG and other LGBT organisations have set up the Defenders Protection Initiative in Uganda, to protect those at immediate risk of violence and abuse.
	We are currently drafting a proposal to maintain this potentially life-saving work, and I understand that it will be submitted to the UK Government imminently. It would cost about £200,000 to implement, and would require technical support to maintain as an emergency service. Will the Government consider making available funds to provide emergency security and protection for those at risk? Will they consider seriously supporting the initiative if a full proposal is submitted in the very near future? Will the Minister join me in condemning Red Pepper for publishing names and putting people in direct danger? Will the Government consider a travel ban for the staff of both Red Pepper and Rolling Stone. This was widely called for in recent weeks, as it was when Rolling Stone published names.
	There have been calls for travel bans for those actively engaged in promoting hatred of homosexuals in Uganda. I discussed this recently with Fox Odoi-Oywelowo, an MP who has been very brave in speaking out against the Act. He is one of only two Members of the Ugandan Parliament to do so. He said to me:
	“Hatemongers shouldn’t roam the world unchecked, unrestrained.”
	I completely agree. The UK Government have a good track record in preventing those who preach hatred from having the privilege of visiting our country. For instance, last year Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, the anti-Islamic US bloggers, were excluded from visiting Britain.
	In a little more than three months’ time, I will be welcoming visitors from all over the world to my home city of Glasgow for the Commonwealth games. I particularly look forward to welcoming the Ugandan delegation, as the country is so close to my heart. However, I would not be comfortable welcoming people who have been preaching hatred and peddling homophobic nonsense in Uganda, and I think the vast majority of
	Scots and Brits agree with me. Glasgow will have a Pride House as part of its celebrations of the Commonwealth games, and I am very proud of that. Will the Minister say whether the Government are considering travel bans for those found to be making hate speeches against the LGBT community in Uganda and in other countries? Will the Minister share with the House whether the UK Government are considering any other sanctions following the passing of the anti-homosexuality Act?

Mike Kane: Does my hon. Friend think that the Ugandan law poses a threat to LGBT visitors to Uganda from the UK?

Pamela Nash: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, which is one of the few not in my speech—I apologise for the length of my speech. I have raised that point with the Government. I agree that there is a risk to LGBT visitors from throughout the world to Uganda. I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has changed its advice to travellers from Britain, but it would be helpful to hear reassurance from the Minister on protection and support in Uganda for British LGBT people visiting or working in the country.

Sandra Osborne: I apologise for being late, Mr Speaker. I had duties in Westminster Hall.
	Is my hon. Friend aware that many Commonwealth countries have dubious laws—to put it mildly—on LGBT rights? Does she agree that the Government should be doing more in relation to the Commonwealth?

Pamela Nash: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. In a recent Westminster Hall debate to celebrate Commonwealth day, we discussed how we could strengthen our relationship with the Commonwealth and use every lever at our disposal to ensure that we get that message across. A key way of doing that and influencing our friends overseas is by implementing the Commonwealth charter.

Chi Onwurah: I, too, apologise for being a few minutes late for this important debate.
	My hon. Friend has mentioned the question of travel to countries such as Uganda which have such a terrible record on LGBT rights. Is not a real issue for businesses that want to trade and engage with those countries having to decide whom to send there? They may either be putting people in danger or discriminating against the LGBT community.

Pamela Nash: I agree, and that point has been raised with me by businesses and non-governmental organisations. In recent weeks, I have been speaking to businesses working both in Uganda and more widely. I shall say more later about some other countries that are implementing similar legislation as we speak. I chair a group that is organising visits to certain countries, and we are looking at visa applications and online biographies of Members of both Houses. Given that some of them are gay, we must consider whether they will be at risk if they visit those countries, and we must think about what we should do to protect our own colleagues in such circumstances.

Crispin Blunt: I understand that the World Bank has conducted a study of the economic effects of discrimination in foreign countries. I am told that the sum effect of the discrimination that is driving multinationals away from countries where there are such laws has been a reduction of up to 1.6% in GDP. I do not have the references, but this is a straightforward economic argument: what is being done in Uganda is absolutely not in its own economic interest.

Pamela Nash: I do not have the figures to hand either, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman, who is showing great interest, respect and dedication in relation to these issues, is right. I am sure that the public will soon correct us on Twitter if that is not the case.
	I should like to hear from the Minister whether the Foreign Secretary intends to raise at the EU-Africa summit in Brussels next week the issue of travel bans, sanctions or any other action against countries and individuals who have shown themselves to be homophobic in recent months, and whether he will be advocating to other Governments travel bans or any other action in relation to those who preach hatred.
	I must now put on my all-party group chair hat. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, and I want to say something about the problems that the Ugandan legislation will cause to people with HIV. The HIV epidemic began 30 years ago, and Lake Victoria was its epicentre at that time. It then became the epicentre of the response, and there was great success in preventing HIV transmission in Uganda, but today, sadly, Uganda is the only country in Africa where HIV rates are increasing, and the Anti-Homosexuality Act will not help at all.
	Uganda’s health Minister, Dr Rugunda, has claimed that the Act will not affect the fight against HIV and will not prevent men who have sex with men from seeking testing and treatment, but I do not see how that can be the case. The Act criminalises just knowing that someone is taking part in
	“homosexual behaviour and related practices”,
	It thus threatens to divide or imprison families, and will cause men who have sex with men to fear visiting health professionals in case they are turned over to the authorities. They will not accept that reassurance from a Minister who has just passed such a draconian law against them and their community.
	I consider the Act to be, quite simply, a violation of the human rights of the Ugandan people. It contradicts Uganda’s constitution, which states:
	“All persons are equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law.”
	Unfortunately, the LGBT community in Uganda no longer has equal protection under the law. In fact it is now criminalised. The message being sent out is that LGBT people are worth less than the rest of the population, and this gives licence for all sorts of further discrimination.
	I now want to turn to the matter of LGBT Ugandans who are leaving Uganda. Frank Mugisha said in a recent interview that he was one of only about 20 out gay men in Uganda. I find that figure astonishing, but given the information we are hearing about it is not a surprise. The fact, however, that only 20 are out in an entire country and that everyone is leaving is shocking.
	I want to raise the case of Jackie Nanyonjo, who sought asylum here in the UK as a Ugandan lesbian. She was deported after the UK Border Agency reportedly told her there was not enough evidence to prove she was gay. It has been reported that during her removal from the UK in January last year she sustained injuries when struggling with four Reliance guards escorting her on a flight to Uganda on behalf of the UKBA. When she was handed over to the Ugandan authorities upon arrival at Entebbe airport, she was detained for hours without medical attention and when her family arrived she was in severe pain and was vomiting blood. Because of the nature of her case with UKBA and her removal and the handing over of her to the authorities, her sexuality was exposed in Uganda and she and her family felt unable to seek medical treatment when she was allowed to go home as that would have put them in serious danger. Jackie died at home two months after this incident. This is not acceptable and it is not unique.
	While I obviously understand that the Government will have big concerns about asylum seekers claiming they are gay even though they are not in order to gain leave to remain, I have to ask the Minister what discussions his Department has had with the Home Office on its policy of granting asylum to LGBT people from Uganda and other countries with homophobic legislation, and whether this policy has changed given the real threat to the lives of LGBT activists in Uganda and other countries in which this level of state-sponsored homophobia is rapidly rising?
	The final major area I want to cover is the current support for related projects in Uganda. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development said to the House and in private meetings recently that DFID is undertaking a full review of expenditure in Uganda following the passing of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, and I agree that that is necessary. The total expenditure must be protected and must definitely not be cut, but we must ensure it is spent wisely, and perhaps is used for the protection of people who may not be getting protection from anyone else at the moment.
	I am concerned that, as far as I am aware, no details of this review have been published. I was also concerned to learn that the only resource that has been dedicated to this important task is 10% of the time of a single civil servant. I do not think that commitment is enough for such an important task. Can the Minister confirm that this is indeed the case, and will he share with us some details about the review and when we might expect its findings to be published?
	I was also concerned that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development confirmed to me recently in response to a written question that DFID has been financially contributing to the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda. This organisation has been extremely vocal and public in its support of the Anti-Homosexuality Act. Indeed, Church leaders were out in force at the parades at the weekend and the recent public celebrations of the passing of the Act. I also have concerns about DFID’s financial support for the Ugandan Parliament’s Committee on Human Rights Affairs, which sat back and offered no scrutiny whatsoever of a Bill that was blatantly in breach of the human rights of Ugandan people, and the Members of Parliament on the Committee
	supported the Bill. Has the Minister discussed this expenditure with his colleagues at DFID? Can he explain how this happened, and what measures are being taken to ensure that never again will UK taxpayers’ money be spent on campaigning against human rights? May we also have a reassurance today that money is not being spent on any other organisations in Uganda that promote this Bill, or on organisations in any other countries that are campaigning against LGBT rights and human rights more generally?
	This DFID funding was funnelled through Uganda’s democratic governance facility, which is also funded by the EU and six other European countries. Will the Minister ask the Foreign Secretary to raise this issue with his counterparts at the EU-Africa summit, and review expenditure and support to organisations that have been actively promoting the Anti-Homosexuality Act?
	Sadly, Uganda is not the only country with anti- gay legislation, as has been mentioned in interventions. I fear that we are on the brink of many countries intensifying their anti-homosexuality legislation. According to the Human Dignity Trust, as of 2014, more than 80 jurisdictions, including some 80% of the 33 Commonwealth countries, have existing laws criminalising private consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, making the expression of their identity illegal and punishable by imprisonment and sometimes even death. The most notable cases include Nigeria, which signed a new anti-gay law in January modelled on the Uganda Bill. Earlier this month, it was reported that four men aged between 20 and 22 had been convicted of homosexual conduct under Sharia law. They were whipped publicly as punishment in an Islamic court in northern Nigeria. They were among dozens caught in a wave of arrests after Nigeria passed the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act in January.
	We have also heard reports that the majority leader in Kenya’s national assembly has described homosexuality as a problem in Kenya on the same scale as terrorism, and suggested that it should be handled in the same way. There is also a copycat private member’s Bill of the Uganda Bill making its way through the Kenyan Parliament.
	Ethiopia is heading in the same direction. Several sources have reported that legislators there are expecting to pass into law a Bill that would make same-sex acts a non-pardonable offence. Recently, India took the retrograde step of reversing a landmark 2009 Delhi high court order that had decriminalised homosexual acts. This was a major blow to human rights in India and further demonstrates this dangerous trend. The many people who came out as a result of homosexuality being legalised in India now face the prospect of being out in a country where their sexuality has been deemed illegal.
	The UK has long been and still is a proud advocate of human rights, and we are strongly pushing the rights of women and girls in our foreign diplomacy and international development programme. I commend the Government for this work and for speaking out on the human rights of LGBT people, but I do not think those rights have been given the same prominence in international relations as those of women and girls. Despite the Foreign Secretary having spoken out repeatedly and strongly against the Anti-Homosexuality Act when it was eventually passed, it appeared that little action was
	taken. The most obvious action would have been to call the Ugandan high commissioner in London to the Foreign Office, but it took weeks before this was done and it only happened after I raised the issue in a Westminster Hall debate and tabled a written question.
	Some Back Benchers and Front Benchers have been cautious about talking about this issue in this place, for fear of being accused of imperialism—of cultural export. However, this is not the west versus the rest of the world: this is good versus ignorance. It is not homosexuality that the west has exported to Uganda, but homophobia.
	Friends in Uganda, including Frank Mugisha, have told me that homophobia was not a big issue in Uganda 20 years ago. Being gay was not widely accepted, but it was a part of life there, and hate speech was not. Similarly, campaigning against the LGBT community was not an issue. If we fast-forward to the past five years, we can see that the homophobic elements of the US evangelical movement have been proactively stoking revulsion towards the LGBT community. Pastors including the infamous Scott Lively have toured Uganda and had a major impact on public reaction to homosexuality. They have managed to distort public opinion and have now linked homosexuality to paedophilia, as is made clear in the wording of the Anti-Homosexuality Act.
	I am pleading with the Government to protect those at risk of human rights abuses in Uganda by providing security and protection measures, and by undertaking suitable human rights monitoring. I ask them to use every lever in their power to halt this trend towards regressive anti-homosexuality legislation. We have a responsibility to protect those at risk, and I ask the Government to act quickly.

Crispin Blunt: I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) on securing this debate, and thank her for supporting me when I had a debate on this subject. I further congratulate her on securing a slot that means we can actually debate this matter properly. I am not sure whether you had something to do with that arrangement, Mr Speaker, but I know that you are the president of the Kaleidoscope Trust, an organisation set up to support activists in countries in which LGBT rights are oppressed. I have the privilege of being the chairman of the parliamentary friends of the Kaleidoscope Trust.
	I salute our two parliamentary colleagues in Uganda, whom the hon. Lady knows, who have been brave enough to speak out against the Anti-Homosexuality Act. That has been a pretty tough call for them, and it is brave of them to take that position against the overwhelming popular and parliamentary attitude. We should register our support for them and for the position they have taken.
	I want to pick up on a couple of the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. I welcome the review that the Home Secretary is now undertaking of our handling of cases in which people have claimed asylum following discrimination on the ground of their homosexuality. That review is long overdue. The commitment to give refuge to LGBT people seeking asylum from oppression in their own country was in my party’s manifesto, as well as in that of the Liberal Democrats. Given that both parts of the coalition supported it, it should have been in the programme for government. It is also the
	stated position of the United Nations, and there has now been a Supreme Court ruling that people should be able to expect to live their lives as they are. Those are therefore the standards that people expect when they claim asylum and freedom from persecution. The disgraceful stories of how the UK Border Agency has handled some of these cases in the past few years are now, happily, a matter of public record and have caused the Home Secretary to take this extremely welcome action.
	I put it to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), that our failure and the wider failure of the global community to prevent this legislation from getting on to the statute book in Uganda will cause a wave of people who are desperate to escape persecution to come here, and that we have a duty to give them refuge, as we have done in the past for people who have been persecuted in other ways. That such people will come to the United Kingdom and other parts of the world to escape persecution will in part be a consequence of our failure as a global community to prevent this legislation from being passed, and of our failure to assist countries that already have such legislation to get rid of it or not to enforce it, as happens in much of the world.

Pamela Nash: It is not often I have cause to praise the current Scottish Government in this House, but I would like to make hon. Members aware that they have offered to take any LGBT Ugandans who are claiming asylum and have called on the UK Government to grant them asylum and send them up to Scotland.

Crispin Blunt: I am not entirely sure it is within the purview of the Scottish Government to do that. Perhaps they are being a little previous in the powers they think they will have. I anticipate that they will not get such powers in September—at least I hope they will not.
	We have had a discussion about the economic impact of this law, and the hon. Lady followed up on the point about how a very small proportion of the work of a civil servant is devoted to this issue. I wish to contrast that with the fact that we appear still to have a prosperity officer sponsored by the UK in Uganda. If the Ugandan Government and Parliament are taking a pistol and blowing their toes off as far as their economy is concerned by passing these kinds of measures, I am slightly puzzled as to why the UK should then think it appropriate to pay for a prosperity officer to be in the country to assist the Ugandan Government in trying to repair some of the damage they have inflicted entirely on themselves.
	Let me now deal with the issue of travel bans by repeating to the Minister the message I have already given in this House: at the moment, it looks as if the Government are in absolutely the right position, giving overtly all possible assistance, short of actual help. We are not actually asking for changes to the amount of money that the Department for International Development gives Uganda. We are expecting the money not to go anywhere near the organs of the Ugandan Government and to ensure that it goes to civil society associations that are not associated with this kind of persecution or oppression and that do not support it. The Prime Minister eloquently made the case about the effectiveness of travel bans in respect of Russia’s behaviour over
	Crimea. Targeted travel bans against people who have been responsible for the promotion of this legislation are exactly the right policy response to bring things home to the individuals who have made it part of their work to get this wretched Act on to the statute book and to create the climate in which it is then enforced. We ought to be in the business of stopping their travel to the United Kingdom and, we hope, to the European Union, and then beginning to examine any assets they may have in the UK.
	In the first instance, therefore, we should be considering a travel ban. Mr Deputy Speaker, top of the list for a travel ban is your colleague the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga. She has played a leading role in the passage of this Bill through the Ugandan Parliament and its becoming an Act. The story of how she reacted to advice given in Canada is perhaps a lesson that we ought to learn about how one can have a negative impact through campaigning, but the fact is that even if her mind was changed in a highly negative direction by people imploring her to do the right thing in other parts of the world, that does not mean that she should be allowed to get away from the fact that she has done an absolutely evil and wrong thing to LGBT people in Uganda and to the reputation of her country.
	Rebecca Kadaga should be top of the list for a ban on travel to the UK, but she is closely followed by David Bahati, the Ugandan Member of Parliament who proposed the original Bill in 2009—that Bill stipulated the death penalty for homosexual acts. After the passage of the Bill in Parliament, he was quoted in the media as saying:
	“I am glad the parliament has voted against evil. Because we are a God-fearing nation, we value life in a holistic way. It is because of those values that members of parliament passed this bill regardless of what the outside world thinks”.
	I think we should make it perfectly clear what the outside world thinks, by banning his travel to the United Kingdom.
	Then there is Mr Simon Lekodo, the Minister of Ethics and Integrity, which is amusing if one has a black sense of humour. Mr Lekodo was sued by four brave LGBT activists, on behalf of the whole LGBT community in Uganda, for interrupting and closing a capacity-building workshop in Entebbe in February 2012. His extremely homophobic comments are frequently quoted in the media.
	Then there is Mr Lekodo’s predecessor, Nsaba Buturo, whose strong support for the anti-homosexuality Bill has also been widely reported. He is apparently of the view that the United Nations has a surreptitious mission to impose on sovereign countries the acceptance of homosexuality.
	Then there is the role of Stephen Tashobya, the Chair of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of the Ugandan Parliament. It was his Committee that chaired and completed the report on the anti-homosexuality Bill for the Parliament, and the Bill was passed on the basis of its findings.
	Going wider than Parliament, we have the people, the so-called Christians, who created the climate under which this wretched legislation was passed. I am not sure that the version of Christianity that I would want
	to understand and recognise is so filled with hatred of other people as it appears to be in Uganda. Pastor Martin Ssempa of the Makerere Christian centre has been on Ugandan television to demonstrate with fruit and vegetables how he believes that gay men and women have sex. I am sure that that must have been particularly enlightening.
	Pastor Solomon Male of the coalition for the advancement of moral values is another strong religious voice in favour of the Act. The coalition compiled and distributed to MPs a brief urging them to pass the Act.
	Then there is the utterly disgraceful wrong of some of the popular press in Uganda. What possible case can there be for allowing the senior staff of the tabloid Red Pepper to come to the United Kingdom, particularly in the light of their incitement to hatred by the listing of 200 so-called homos in Uganda? Why should Richard Tusiime, the chief executive officer; Arinaitwe Rugyendo, the chief marketing officer; James Mujuni, the chief commercial officer; Patrick Mugumya, the chief operations officer; Johnson Musinguzi, the chief finance officer; Ben Byarabaha, the news editor; or Gazzaman Kodili, the deputy news editor be allowed to come to the United Kingdom? They surely should be subject to a travel ban. As should be the disgraceful Giles Muhame, the editor-in-chief of ChimpReports, but formerly the managing editor of the weekly tabloid newspaper Rolling Stone (Uganda), which was absolutely associated with the incitement to hatred that led to the murder of the Ugandan gay activist, David Kato. His murder was almost certainly a consequence of the climate of opinion that was created by that newspaper, which called for the execution of gay people.
	This is an immensely serious issue. The hon. Lady referred to the regrettable tide against what had seemed to be a steady march of progress, enlightenment and decency around the world. That march, which has been in progress in our own country for 50 years, was marked so wonderfully last weekend by the first same-sex marriages. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to deserve its proud reputation of standing up for rights in this area and to find ways to back up our fine words with action.

Nick Herbert: I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) on securing this debate on a good day on which we have a little more time to discuss the issue than we might otherwise have expected. I want briefly to add my voice to those from all parties who have expressed concern about the actions of the Ugandan Parliament in passing this appalling and repressive legislation.
	We are witnessing a tale of two worlds. In one world, we saw last weekend the joyful sight of same-sex couples in this country being able to enter into marriages for the first time thanks to a vote in this House of Commons that passed that legislation by a substantial majority, while similar legislation is being passed around the world—in France, in New Zealand and increasingly in the states of the United States of America—where a majority of the public is now in favour of such progressive legislation. In another, less admirable, world, not only have some countries retained repressive regimes towards
	homosexuals and other minorities but others are engaged in passing populist and discriminatory legislation of the kind we have seen in Uganda. This is not just evil homophobia that is making people’s lives a misery and, in some cases, leading not only to the repression of gay people but to their deaths. It is state-sponsored homophobia, and that is what makes it so ugly.
	I want to make two broad points. First, Uganda’s decision followed hard on the heels of Nigeria’s. The Nigerian President, having sat on a similar piece of legislation to Uganda’s for some time, suddenly passed what is called—paradoxically, after we passed our Bill to enable same-sex marriage—the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act, to which the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts referred. It not only prohibits same-sex marriages in Nigeria but outlaws any public expression of affection between gay people, with extraordinarily severe sentences. There is a maximum 10-year prison sentence for those who commit that offence. Imagine the chilling and repressive effect that that criminal legislation has on young gay people in Nigeria today.
	My second point is that this legislation is being passed by Commonwealth countries, Nigeria and Uganda. Just over a year ago, those countries signed up to the Commonwealth charter. Article 2 of the charter takes a stand against discrimination and article 4 also prohibits legislation of this kind. From memory, I think it talks about “mutual understanding and respect”. How can those countries sign up to the Commonwealth charter and so quickly pass legislation in flagrant breach of it? What does the Commonwealth stand for, and what is the point of its charter unless it is willing to take a stance and say that this is not acceptable?
	It is very easy to be cowed in this place and the west by the view that, as the hon. Lady so eloquently put it, to condemn such legislation is to engage in a form of neo-colonialism and that it is not our place to lecture other countries about their morals and how they do things in their society. If we took that view, we would silence ourselves for ever as regards our ability to condemn human rights abuses that we consider completely unjustifiable. We have to take a stand in the west. Yes, it should be an intelligent and sensitive stand and we should be guided by courageous activists on the ground, such as Frank Mugisha, who tell us what will and what will not help, but we should not be cowed from speaking out about such legislation. If we are, that is the same as seeing a child being bullied on the street and saying that it is better to pass by and ignore the bullying because otherwise we might make the bullies worse and they might do it again. No, we have to take a stance and intervene.
	The Government have rightly taken a stance and should continue to do so. The Commonwealth should take a stance and should continue to do so. Individual Members of Parliament should feel emboldened to stand up and look Members of Parliament in Uganda and Nigeria and now Ethiopia in the eye and say, “This is wrong. What you are doing is wrong.” We are not neo-colonialists for standing up and saying it is wrong. We are subscribers to the universal declaration of human rights. We are subscribers to fundamental values that say that people shall not be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin, their sexual identity or their sexuality. We subscribe to these universal human values and everybody should adhere to those standards.

Chi Onwurah: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), about the need for every one of us to be able to stand up for these values. Does he agree that just as many countries in Africa stood up and condemned apartheid in South Africa, and stood up and condemned the civil rights position and the Jim Crow laws in America in the ’60s, it is for us also to stand up and condemn where we see that evil is happening in those countries?

Nick Herbert: I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention. She makes a powerful point. That must, of course, be right. In the same way that it was right to condemn those regimes and that evil, it is right to do so now.
	The list of countries that continue to foster these repressive regimes is much longer than the list that has been read out this evening. There are still countries all around the world that have these regimes. We have not talked at all about Russia and the despicable link that President Putin made recently between homosexuality and paedophilia, and the way in which gay people in Russia are being brutalised while the authorities turn a blind eye. The Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme made a powerful documentary in February which showed quite horrific scenes of young people being physically assaulted by gangs on the streets and the police merely turning a blind eye.
	Do not let us make the mistake of thinking that this is just Uganda, or just Nigeria, and a minority of countries. I regret that it is not. This is a tale of two worlds. This House of Commons knows which world we belong to and which side we belong to, and we should not be afraid to stand up and say, “Yes, we too made these mistakes. We too once had this kind of legislation.” We had legislation in the not so distant past that was repressive of gay people, and we learnt from those mistakes. We admit that we got things wrong and we urge others to understand the fundamental importance of these universal human values and why it is wrong for them, too, to discriminate against minorities, including gay people.

Hugo Swire: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) for securing this debate. I am aware from having done my research that she has a great affinity with Uganda and has family and friends there, and she has often visited, including as a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association member.
	Members on both sides of the House share a commitment to protecting minority rights, not only in Uganda but all around the world. As we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), alas, the lack of such protection it is all too prevalent and widespread around the world.
	The depth of feeling on the issue is reflected in the way it has been the subject now of two debates in the House in as many months. Regrettably, other ministerial commitments prevent the Minister with responsibility for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and
	Skegness (Mark Simmonds), from being here today. But in the debate on 12 February he emphasised that combating violence and discrimination against LGBT communities forms an integral part of our tireless efforts to protect and promote human rights internationally.
	We share the concern about the discriminatory legislation passed by the Ugandan Parliament late last year and signed into law by President Museveni on 24 February. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was clear in his statement that same day that the United Kingdom strongly opposes discrimination on any grounds and questions the compatibility of the anti-homosexuality Act with Uganda’s constitution and international treaty obligations, which I understand are being looked at in that country at the moment.
	We have left the Ugandan Government in absolutely no doubt about how strongly we feel about this issue, as well as the significant damage done to Uganda’s reputation internationally. My hon. Friend the Minister for Africa raised the issue with the Ugandan Foreign Minister on 28 January, with the Deputy Foreign Minister on 13 February and with the Ugandan high commissioner on 18 March. He hopes to meet the Ugandan Foreign Minister at the EU-Africa summit in Brussels, which began today. Our high commissioner to Uganda discussed the issue at length with President Museveni on 11 March. In recent weeks she has also met the Ugandan Minister for Justice, the Inspector General of Police, the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Foreign Minister to seek assurances on the protection of individuals and the impact of the legislation.
	We are also making representations through the EU. At a political dialogue meeting on 28 March, the EU called on Uganda to repeal the anti-homosexuality Act, to reconfirm its commitment to human rights and to ensure protection and equal treatment under the law for citizens. We fully endorse those calls. Ugandan Ministers present included the Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Internal Affairs, Ethics and Integrity and Information.
	I join in the condemnation we have heard from hon. Members today of the contemptible journalism, if it can even be described as such, in both Red Pepper and Rolling Stone. At every stage of our contact with the Ugandan authorities, they have given us assurances that their intention is not to undermine the personal security of the LGBT community. When we have informed the police about the persecution of individuals, they have responded immediately to ensure their security. However, I absolutely take the point the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts made. We will certainly want to look at any project designed to protect the LGBT community very closely and in great detail when it is presented to us.

Pamela Nash: Is the Minister saying that the UK Government’s advice to LGBT people in Uganda who feel at risk because they are LGBT is to call the police so that they can protect them, because the police will be enforcing a law that means they could be imprisoned because they are gay?

Hugo Swire: I can only explain what has happened to date. I was responding to the hon. Lady’s request in the second part of what I was saying. I repeat that we will
	certainly want to look at any project designed to protect the LGBT community very closely and in great detail if it is presented to us. We will continue to hold the authorities to their assurances to investigate any attacks fully and to urge the Ugandan Government to protect all their citizens from discrimination. The hon. Lady also talked about monitoring human rights abuses. We have a human rights report, of course, but we will certainly consider her very relevant point and see what more we can do.
	We have listened carefully to calls, in this debate and elsewhere, for us to consider sanctions against those who have supported the anti-homosexuality law. The United Kingdom has already ended budget support payments to the Ugandan Government following concerns about corruption last year. Our development programme to Uganda goes through a variety of channels, including private sector organisations, non-governmental organisations and multilateral agencies. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa said in the debate on 12 February, we do not believe that imposing travel bans or any other sanctions on supporters of the Bill would be effective in promoting a rethink.
	It is worth bearing in mind that there is widespread support for the legislation in Uganda. We must therefore be mindful of the requests made to the international community not to make well-intentioned public statements and threats that many activists in Uganda fear would be counter-productive and likely to worsen the situation of LGBT individuals or harm efforts to promote LGBT rights. That is also our assessment. In that regard, I note that the guidelines issued on 3 March by the Ugandan Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law, which includes LGBT groups, including Sexual Minorities Uganda, do not call for travel bans or other sanctions.

Crispin Blunt: It is a bit strange, then, that the chairman of Sexual Minorities Uganda, who has been here and has met my hon. Friend’s colleagues, including the Foreign Secretary—we are profoundly grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving the time to see him—has asked for these travel bans. I am not quite sure what is going on, and different interpretations appear to be being placed on it. I urge my hon. Friend to take this up, because it is absolutely not the message that we are receiving.

Hugo Swire: It is certainly not the message that we are receiving. I repeat that the Ugandan Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law, which includes LGBT groups, including SMUG, does not call for travel bans or other sanctions. However, I am happy to discuss this with my hon. Friend, and the door of my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa is open to him if he has other information.

Pamela Nash: I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with time; he is probably here a little later than he expected. Let me clarify this point. There have been calls not to implement travel bans for all Members of Parliament and all Government officials who have been involved, but a very specific list exists—I am sure that the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and I could share it with the Minister—of certain politicians who have actively been promoting the Bill. The hon. Gentleman read out a list of those working for the
	newspaper,
	Red Pepper
	, and several other activists. SMUG had previously asked that not all Government officials and Members of Parliament be given travel bans because that would not be helpful.

Hugo Swire: I commit my absent hon. Friend the Minister for Africa to having a meeting, at which I shall also want to be present, to go through this and look at the information to which the hon. Lady alludes.
	What we should be doing is to continue, first, to make it very clear where we stand on this Bill, and on discrimination and harassment against individuals on any grounds; and, secondly, to engage with NGOs and civil society groups on how best to support their efforts to promote LGBT rights in Uganda—something to which the Government remain committed. For example, on 11 February my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa met the executive director of SMUG, Dr Frank Mugisha, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to hear first hand the challenges faced by the LGBT community in Uganda. Dr Mugisha also met the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). On 12 March, Dr Mugisha met my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble Friend Baroness Warsi to discuss latest developments following the introduction of the law, the LGBT community’s next step, and how we can continue to work closely together in this even more difficult environment. These meetings with, and access to, senior Ministers demonstrate just how seriously the Government take this issue.
	Our high commission in Kampala is working extremely closely with Ugandan civil society groups on the ground to promote inclusivity, diversity and tolerance, in co-ordination with our international partners. We have supported training, advocacy, and legal cases related to the protection of LGBT rights, and have recently supported a Kaleidoscope Trust project working with the LGBT community in Uganda. United Kingdom officials have also engaged extensively with UK and Uganda-based NGOs, including Stonewall, the Kaleidoscope Trust and the Human Dignity Trust, to explain our approach.
	Our objective is clear: to improve respect for and protection of LGBT rights. That will involve long-term cultural change, not just legislative fixes, important as they are. And our focus is not only on Uganda—we are only too aware of countries of concern elsewhere in the world. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have therefore asked officials across Whitehall to have a fresh look at our global approach on LGBT rights. That review is now under way.
	The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), who is not in her place, raised the issue of the Commonwealth. Speaking as the Minister for the Commonwealth, I am deeply concerned that over 40 of the 53 countries in the Commonwealth continue to criminalise homosexuality, despite signing up to the Commonwealth charter, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, includes language opposing “all forms of discrimination”. He mentioned article 4, which is about promoting mutual understanding and respect.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has also written to the Commonwealth secretary-general to seek his support to address that worrying trend in a number of Commonwealth countries.
	Over the past three days I have hosted a conference at Wilton Park on the future of the Commonwealth with politicians, diplomats and civil society groups from across its 53 countries. This morning, we invited the Kaleidoscope Trust to run a session on LGBT rights as an integral part of the values expressed in the Commonwealth charter. My absolutely excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), was also there throughout. The secretary-general’s recent statement calling for Commonwealth values to be upheld in respect of sexual orientation and gender identity is a welcome step.
	Let me conclude by saying that I believe the Government’s record on promoting LGBT rights is second to none. This week we have seen the first gay marriages in the UK take place. I am proud that last Saturday I attended one of the first same-sex marriages in the UK, between the excellent mayor of Exmouth, John Humphreys, and his long-term partner, David Marston—in fact, it is possible that I can lay claim to being the first Minister to attend a same-sex marriage.
	Before we pat ourselves on the back, however, it has taken us long time to reach this point, and we need to recognise that it will also take time for others. Nevertheless, universal rights, including for LGBT individuals, are something on which we will not compromise. Free, tolerant and inclusive societies are better able to fulfil the aspirations of their people, and are more resilient and forward looking. Some work needs to be done on the claims made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) about the adverse effects on GDP for countries that enact regressive legislation of the sort we are discussing. A country that is accountable—

Pamela Nash: Will the Minister give way?

Hugo Swire: I was just reaching my peroration. The hon. Lady has ruined it, but of course I will give way.

Pamela Nash: My deepest apologies to the Minister, who has said that he was concluding. I asked specific questions about DFID funding. I appreciate that DFID is not his Department but I have serious concerns about its money being spent on organisations that are promoting the Bill in Uganda and doing other such work elsewhere. Will he undertake to have a conversation on that with DFID and ask it to put that expenditure on record with an explanation?

Hugo Swire: There have been a number of questions to DFID Ministers on that point. The hon. Lady will no doubt have seen those and will want to review them. If she has any remaining specific questions about particular aspects of DFID funding, I would advise her to raise those with colleagues in that Department.
	As I was saying, a country that is accountable and treats its people with dignity is more likely to foster creativity, ingenuity, economic opportunity and harmony—all prerequisites for long-term stability and security, not least with regard to neighbouring countries. That is a message that the British Government will continue to
	carry forcefully and ceaselessly around the world and one that, through her eloquence and by securing tonight’s debate, the hon. Lady has helped to ensure will continue to be heard.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.